Preamble

The House met at half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STANDING ORDER (TABLE OF FEES)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sit Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That the Standing Order of the 27th day of July, 1864 (A Table of the Fees to be charged at tie House of Commons), be repealed and that the Table be as set out on the Order Paper.
The altered Table of Fees which is now before the House originates in the recommendation made by the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure. The House will be glad to hear that the proposed fees in the two Houses have been made the same so far as possible, and that a similar Table of Fees is on today's Order Paper in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of the 27th day of July, 1864 (A Table of the Fees to be charged at the House of Commons), be repealed :
That the following be the Table of the Fees to be charged at the House of Commons :


"I. FEES TO BE PAID BY THE PROMOTERS OF A PRIVATE BILL



£
s.
d.


For the deposit of the Petition, Bill, Plan and other Documents required to be deposited in the Private Bill Office
5
0
0


For each day on which the Examiner shall inquire into compliance with the Standing Orders
5
0
0




FOR PROCEEDINGS IN THE HOUSE



£
s.
d.


On the First Reading of the Bill
15
0
0


On the Second Reading of the Bill
15
0
0


On the Report from the Committee on the Bill
15
0
0


On the Third Reading of the Bill
15
0
0


Additional fee on a Debate at Seven o'clock on one or more evenings on any one stage of the Bill
25
0
0

The promoters of Bills relating to charitable, religious, educational, literary or scientific purposes whereby no private profit or advantage is derived, and Personal Bills brought from the Lords, may be charged one-half of the preceding fees.

Except for such Bills as are mentioned in the last preceding paragraph, the preceding Fees on First, Second and Third Readings, and on Report, shall be increased, according to the total sum of the moneys which it is proposed to raise or expend under the authority of the Bill, in accordance with the following scale :

If the sum be £200,000 or more, and less than £1,000,000, twice the amount of these Fees ;

If the sum be £1,000,000 or more, and less than £2,000,000, three times the amount of these Fees ;

If the sum be £2,000,000 or more, and less than £3,000,000, four times the amount of these Fees ;

If the sum be £3,000,000 or more, and less than £5,000,000. five times the amount of these Fees ;

If the sum be £5,000,000 or more, six times the amount of these Fees.


FOR PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A COMMITTEE OR THE COURT OF REFEREES



£
s.
d.


For each of the first three days on which a Committee on an opposed Bill shall sit
10
0
0


For each subsequent day
15
0
0


For each day on which a Committee on an unopposed Bill shall sit
3
0
0


For each day on which the Court of Referees shall sit
10
0
0

For proceedings before a Joint Committee one-half of the preceding fees shall be charged.

II. FEES TO BE PAID BY PETITIONERS AND MEMORIALISTS



£
s.
d.


On the deposit of any Memorial complaining that the Standing Orders have not been complied with
1
0
0


On the presentation of any Petition in favour of or against a Private Bill
2
0
0


For each day on which the Examiner inquires into any Memorial complaining of noncompliance with the Standing Orders
2
0
0


For each day on which a Petitioner appears before any Committee or before the Court of Referees
2
0
0


For each day on which a Petitioner appears before a Joint Committee
1
0
0

III. FEES TO BE PAID BY THE APPLICANTS FOR A PROVISIONAL ORDER

On the Second Reading of a Bill to confirm one or more Provisional Orders, other than a Bill to confirm an Order or Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, the applicants for each Provisional Order included in the Bill shall be charged a fee of £15.

For proceedings before the Court of Referees or any Committee, the fees charged to applicants and opponents shall be at the same rates as those charged for similar proceedings on a Private Bill

IV. FEES TO BE PAID FOR PROCEEDINGS ON A SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDER


For each day on which an applicant (other than a Minister) appears before—






£
s.
d.


(a) the Chairmen
3
0
0


(b) a Joint Committee
5
0
0


On the deposit of each Petition or of each Counter-Petition
2
0
0


For each day on which a Petitioner in either House appears before the Chairmen or before a Joint Committee
1
0
0


For each day on which a Counter-Petitioner in either House appears before a Joint Committee
1
0
0

VI. FEES TO BE PAID ON THE TAXATN COSTS ON PRIVATE BILLS



£
S.
d.


For each application or reference to the Taxing Officer of the House of Commons for the Taxation of a Bill of Costs
1
0
0


For each £100 of any Bill of Costs allowed by the Taxing Officer
1
0
0


On the deposit of a Memorial complaining of a Report of the Taxing Officer
1
0
0


For any Certificate which shall be signed by the Speaker
1
0
0


For a copy of any Document in the office of the Taxing Officer, per folio of 72 words
0
1
0

The preceding fees shall be charged, paid, and received at such times, in such manner, and under such regulations as the Speaker shall from time to time direct."

Ordered,

That the said Table of Fees be a Standing Order of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Spring-Clip Knives

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now decided to take action to keep spring-clip knives out of the hands of young persons ; and if he will immediately introduce legislation to make the sale, loan or gift of such knives to young persons illegal.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the outcome of his consultations regarding the prohibition of the import of flick knives from Italy.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): While I agree that it is desirable to keep spring-clip knives out of the hands of young persons, I do not consider that this object could best be achieved by legislation of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner). My right hon Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I are in


consultation with the representative trade associations about the possibility of cutting off the supply of these knives, whether imported or otherwise, by voluntary action on the part of traders.

Mr. Janner: Is not the right hon, and gallant Gentleman aware that there has been considerable trouble already? Is he going to wait until there are further murders by means of these knives before doing something practical? Can he tell the House when he is likely to get some reply from the associations to which he has referred the matter?

Major Lloyd-George: Consultations have been going on and, up to date, have been very satisfactory. Incidentally, I share the hon. Member's views about the whole of this knives question, but legislation is not easy. Definition is not easy because many knives, never mind clip knives, are legitimate knives, used for trade in this country. I am very hopeful that as a result of the consultations we have had, and which are continuing, with the various associations we shall be able to do something effective.

Captain Pilkington: In view of the fact that these discussions have been continuing for some considerable time, can my right hon. and gallant Friend say when he is likely to arrive at a conclusion so that action may be taken?

Major Lloyd-George: As a result of the response by the associations and of the suggestions made, I hope very soon.

Prisoners (Letters to Members)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the misunderstanding that still exists on the subject, he will now give instructions that letters sent by prisoners to Members of Parliament are not to be censored.

Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir. As regards prison treatment, prisoners are permitted to write to Members of Parliament only if they have previously and unsuccessfully sought redress through one of the other channels appointed for consideration of complaints. Without censorship, it would be impossible to determine whether a letter contained matter in contravention of this rule or other objectionable matter.

Mr. Collins: But is the Home Secretary aware that this censorship serves not, as he told me, to protect M.P.s from abusive or threatening letters, but for the suppression of letters complaining of prison conditions ; that this is grossly unfair and, in fact, an aspersion on the honour and competence of every non. Member of this House? Therefore, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not go into this question and alter the practice?

Major Lloyd-George: I did not suggest that the main purpose of this practice was to prevent prisoners writing to hon. Members of this House. There are many reasons for it, such as objectionable matter, how to commit crimes and other things. [Laughter.] No, it is not only the censorship of letters to M.P.s ; all letters have to be censored for these obvious reasons, and the existing system by which prisoners can complain is perfectly satisfactory. It is impossible to abolish the censorship of letters, because all kinds of complaints could be made which can be ventilated in the ordinary way.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: But is the Home Secretary aware that this practice is capable of the gravest abuse, and could he not tell the House that he will consider this action in the light of discussions with the prison authorities?

Major Lloyd-George: No, Sir, I could not possibly give that undertaking. I have gone into this matter very carefully, and I am satisfied that the existing system meets all the requirements of the present day.

Young Persons (Remand Centres)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the case of which particulars have been sent to him and of similar cases, he will make provision for persons under twenty-one years of age to be sent to remand homes instead of prisons when ordered to be kept in custody prior to being sentenced.

Major Lloyd-George: Young persons under seventeen years of age are normally detained in remand homes, but there is no power to send young persons of seventeen and over to these homes which, in any event, are not suitably staffed or


organised for their reception. I share the hon. Member's anxiety that this older group should also be kept out of prison, and I hope ultimately to provide remand centres for their detention, but the cost of building these centres will be heavy, and I cannot at the moment say when it will be possible to make a start.

Mr. Brockway: Without wishing to prejudice a young person by identifying him with this specific case, may I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he is aware that at present young persons still at school on a first charge can be sent to prison on remand for a period and, in a particular case, at the end of the week discharged? Will the Home Secretary not try to do something to prevent this possibility of the contamination in prison of such young persons?

Major Lloyd-George: I do everything I can, and I fully appreciate, and agree with, what the hon. Gentleman has said. Under the existing limitations, which we will do our best to get rid of when circumstances permit, we do everything we can to put prisoners of the young age referred to—I know the case which the hon. Gentleman has in mind—amongst either starred prisoners or those of the same age.

Mr. Younger: Can the Home Secretary not offer us any more hope than the word "ultimately" of the provision of remand centres, which was envisaged in the 1948 Act? Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, according to the latest figures he has made available, which I am sorry to see are not later than 1953, in that year not far short of 3,000 young people went to prison before conviction or sentence who were subsequently not sentenced to prison? That is a serious matter. Can the Home Secretary really not offer us something better than to say that "ultimately" he hopes to provide remand centres for this purpose?

Major Lloyd-George: I will do everything I possibly can. Everything is ultimate, and we are doing everything we can. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, however, that there are serious difficulties at the present time.

Mr. Royle: Has the attention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman been called to a resolution passed unanimously

last week at the annual meeting of the Magistrates' Association which shows their grave anxiety on this question, and cannot he hurry things on according to the terms of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948?

Major Lloyd-George: I will do everything I can.

Remanded Persons (Bail)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the growing practice of remanding accused persons in custody even when there is no reason to believe that they are likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence or conceal stolen goods ; and whether he will introduce legislation to restrict the power of the courts to refuse bail.

Major Lloyd-George: I am aware that a considerable proportion of those who are received in prison on remand do not subsequently return as convicted persons. Some of these were remanded in custody for medical inquiry, and no doubt others were refused bail only because they had been unable to find the sureties which the magistrates considered desirable. If the accused is committed in custody for an offence other than murder or treason, he must, under the Magistrates Courts Rules, be informed of his right to apply to a judge of the High Court for bail. He can apply without cost to himself because if he has no money the Official Solicitor acts for him.
The grant or refusal of bail seems to me to be a matter on which the courts ought not to be closely fettered by legislation and on the information before me I am not prepared to introduce legislation on the subject.

Mr. de Freitas: Is the Home Secretary aware that there have been several cases recently in which bail has been refused and in which the police certainly had no objection to it, and will he not, here and elsewhere, draw the attention of magistrates to the very serious step they are taking in remanding in custody, and depriving of his liberty, someone who has not yet been convicted of any offence?

Major Lloyd-George: We have issued two circulars in recent years on this matter to magistrates, but I will certainly look again into the question.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the recent case where a man was detained in custody on a murder charge for more than four months in circumstances in which, when the trial was brought on, the prosecution informed the court that they had no evidence fit to put before the court and withdrew the charge?

Major Lloyd-George: I am not quite clear about the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but I fancy the man was charged with murder. I said that there were two exceptions, murder and treason.

Accused Persons (Identification)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that in many cases prisoners are convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment when the only evidence against them is that of identification by a single person ; and if he will introduce legislation to provide that in such cases corroboration should be required before a person may lawfully be convicted.

Major Lloyd-George: Such cases no doubt occur from time to time, but I have no reason to think that they are numerous. The weight to be attached to identification by a single person must vary with the circumstances of the case, and I do not think that it would be right to lay it down as a general principle that in no circumstances should a jury convict merely on the identification of an accused by a single witness.

Mr. Collins: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the evidence of identification is invariably believed, though the evidence of reputable defence witnesses to an alibi is not believed, and that in the event of these men being convicted, it is impossible, without a confession or fresh evidence, to get them released, which means that it is conviction by identification and that a man is assumed guilty unless he can prove his innocence? Will he look further into the matter?

Major Lloyd-George: It is very difficult to pursue what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I can give one example of how difficult it would be, in the case of an assault on a woman. In most cases there is only one possible person who could have seen the assailant, and that is the

woman. It would be a terrible thing if the man could never be convicted unless there was corroborative evidence. I think that would be quite impossible.

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that it is a common practice, when a crime has been committed, for the Metropolitan police to put up for identification criminals, presently at liberty, who have previous convictions for the same type of crime ; and if he will review this practice with the object of preventing the grave injustices which have arisen in recent cases.

Major Lloyd-George: There is no foundation for the suggestion that it is the practice of the Metropolitan police to put up individuals for identification by eye witnesses simply because they have previous convictions for the same type of crime. A person is put up for identification only if he answers the description of a person suspected of the crime under investigation, and there is some evidence or other good reason to connect him with the crime. I see no reason for reviewing these arrangements.

Mr. Collins: While I do not accept the reply given by the Home Secretary, which does not appear to be in accordance with the facts in many cases of which hon. Members are aware, may I ask whether he will review the methods used for identifying suspects with the object of drawing up rules governing methods of identification?

Major Lloyd-George: The hon. Gentleman says that he does not agree with my answer. That does not surprise me. I know the case he has in mind, and what I have stated in my answer is completely in accordance with it. I spent many hours on the case.

Prevention of Accidents (Window Cleaners)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation giving him power to make regulations for the purpose of preventing accidents to window cleaners and of ensuring the continued efficiency of precautionary apparatus used by them.

Major Lloyd-George: Under the tentative proposals for legislation on health, welfare and safety in non-industrial employment which have been circulated to interested organisations, there would be power to make regulations to promote the safety of persons employed in a wide range of non-industrial places of work. I cannot say at present whether it will be practicable to make regulations covering window cleaners specifically.

Mr. Hastings: On whom does the coming into force of the regulations depend? Is it the local authorities, and if not, who is it? In framing regulations, will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the need to ensure that the precautions which ought to be taken are watched so that their efficiency is maintained?

Major Lloyd-George: I will certainly look into all that. However, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is an extremely difficult matter because of the varying types of premises which have their windows cleaned. In the case of factories, it would come under the Factories Act. In the case of window cleaning in ordinary houses, one of the difficulties is that many of the window cleaners are self-employed. However. I will look into the matter.

Mr. Lindgren: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the greatest dangers arise in the case of large buildings and where the window-cleaning is done under contract? It really arises from the insistence of window cleaning companies upon piecework rather than normal work, and it is this which leads to the regulations being ignored. Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman do something about that?

Major Lloyd-George: Leaving aside the cases covered by the Factories Act. I cannot say how it would be done in the cases which the hon. Member has in mind, because it is an extremely difficult matter. It would be one of the cases covered by the new Act, in that it is non-industrial employment. It is something which it would be very difficult to do, but it would obviously come under that Act.

Civil Defence Film (Hydrogen Bomb)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to facilitate the showing at home and abroad, and particularly in the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of the Home Office Civil Defence film showing the devastation which would be caused if a hydrogen bomb were dropped on a modern city.

Major Lloyd-George: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a previous Question, this is primarily a Civil Defence training film, and good use has been made of it for this purpose. Sixteen millimetre copies are on sale to local authorities who have been told that they are free to give it public showing. The film has been brought to the notice of Commonwealth and Colonial governments, the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and other foreign Governments with whom we are regularly in touch on Civil Defence matters. A number of those countries, including the United States of America, have acquired copies. One or two other Governments have also asked for a copy and those requests have been met. No special steps have been taken to bring the film to the notice of the Government of the Soviet Union.

Mr. de Freitas: Would it not be a good idea to do so? After all, is it not important that in all countries which have the power to deliver the hydrogen bomb the public should, as far as possible, be aware of its appalling consequences?

Major Lloyd-George: Up to date the film has been offered only to those people with whom we normally exchange Civil Defence information. I have had no request from the Soviet Government for it. It is primarily a training film, and the main purpose in producing it was to give it to our own people, and others interested, for Civil Defence purposes.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider making a large film for general distribution to cinemas so that the public, as well as Civil Defence workers, may be informed of what is to be expected?

Major Lloyd-George: The film is available to anybody who wants it. If any cinema wanted to show it, it could do so, and even the B.B.C. if it wished.

Adoption of Children (Report)

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation with a view to implementing the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children, which were presented in September, 1954.

Major Lloyd-George: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave on 28th June to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish).

Mr. Younger: Would the Home Secretary remind the House what that answer was? Did it indicate that he sees no immediate prospect? Is he aware that there are many people working in this sphere who feel that some of these recommendations are scarcely controversial but would be very useful indeed and that they are looking to him to bring them into effect?

Major Lloyd-George: I can only repeat my previous answer, that we shall do so when time can be found for it.

Epileptic Prisoners

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners with medical records of epilepsy are in each of Her Majesty's Prisons ;
(2) how many specially equipped cells there are in each of Her Majesty's Prisons for epileptics ;
(3) what special arrangements are made in each of Her Majesty's Prisons to attend to epileptics to prevent them injuring themselves.

Major Lloyd-George: Current figures of epileptic prisoners in each prison are not available. The most recent available annual total figures show that 192 epileptics were received into custody in 1954 and that a further 209 prisoners were recorded as possibly having epilepsy. With two exceptions, in prisons where prisoners with severe epilepsy are detained the number of specially equipped cells for their use ranges from one to seven. In the two such prisons where there is no permanent provision special ad hoc arrangements are made as necessary. Prisoners suffering from epilepsy receive ati-convulsant drugs and other medicinal treatment ; where necessary

they are lodged in cells equipped to reduce the likelihood of injury.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Home Secretary aware that the arrangements which are made are totally inadequate, that some of the epileptic prisoners damage themselves very extensively when they have bad fits, and that the temporary arrangement in a cell consists merely of putting along the side of the wall a mattress which is never high enough to prevent a prisoner banging his head? Will the Home Secretary look at the whole question in the interests of prisoners who are many times in prison as a direct result of epilepsy?

Major Lloyd-George: While not necessarily accepting everything the hon. Lady has stated, in a matter of this sort I am always prepared to consider any suggestions made, and I am willing to do so in this instance.

Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give careful consideration to permitting epileptic prisoners to be detained only in prisons which have all the facilities necessary for dealing with them, including what amounts to a padded cell?

Major Lloyd-George: In many cases, where a padded cell is provided, it is hardly ever used. I think that in one of the cases which the hon. Lady had in mind one of the prisoners was not in the special cell but was undergoing treatment and observation in hospital. That sort of thing sometimes happens, and temporary accommodation has to be provided. As I told the hon. Lady, I will certainly look into the matter.

Car Parking

Miss Burton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the nuisance caused to householders in the central area of London by the continuous and indiscriminate parking of cars in front of their premises ; and if he will refer the problem to the Commissioner of Police with the aim of giving householders reasonable access to their own premises.

Major Lloyd-George: Both the Commissioner of Police and I are well aware of the problem and sympathise with


householders in the inconvenience to which they are subjected. Parking in front of someone else's house is not in itself an offence. In the absence of a statutory prohibition on parking in a particular roadway—which would apply to residents and non-residents alike—an offence is committed only if parking causes an obstruction of the highway. Within the limits of their resources the police take action when obstruction occurs.

Miss Burton: While appreciating the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's sympathy, is he aware that it neither keeps m. Dr. nor lets me see out of my window? Has he seen a letter in The Times today where a man says that his car is immobilised in his garage, that he cannot get it out because of someone parking? Furthermore, the police said that they could do nothing about it and would prosecute him if he took action. This is beyond all bounds. Will the Home Secretary consider introducing legislation such as that just mentioned?

Major Lloyd-George: I need hardly say that I share the hon. Lady's view completely, because I am sure she is not the only one who has got wet. As the law is at the moment, the police can act only if obstruction is caused on the highway. The real difficulty of the police is that their main task—and, believe me, it is an extremely heavy one—is to keep traffic flowing, and they do their best to do so. If there is no such obstruction in side streets, the police cannot act. I have had this matter in mind for some considerable time, and I am in very close consultation with my right hon. Friend about it. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept from me that I do sympathise very strongly with her and will do everything possible to put the matter right.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Has not the time arrived when my right hon. and gallant Friend should take powers to enable the Metropolitan Police, within certain times and in certain streets, to impose an absolute ban on the parking of all unattended cars and vans, except those serving the occupiers of the premises?

Major Lloyd-George: My noble Friend will remember that my right hon. Friend

the Minister of Transport set up a Committee earlier this year to look into the question of which streets should be forbidden for any parking. From what he said then, I think that this report should be available very shortly.

Mr. Bellenger: Will the Home Secretary at least take steps to see that those who park their cars on the streets—and I do not support the attitude that the householders have the right to the frontage of the roads—at least do not lock their cars, as that is often a great cause of obstruction when they have to be moved either by the police or private individuals?

Major Lloyd-George: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is most annoying. I have myself known a car to be locked and the owner to have gone away for three weeks. I do not know how many police we should require to go round each car to see if it was locked when it was left unattended. The first step is that we should hear from my right hon. Friend the results of the investigation by the London Traffic Advisory Committee to see in which roads parking could be forbidden. Then the police would be in a very different position.

Sir John Crowder: While I agree that the owner of a house has no prescriptive right to the "foreshore" and can only try to persuade people not to park in front of his house, would not the Home Secretary agree that it is really intolerable when cars are parked in front of people's garages? Consider the case of a doctor who requires to go out at night to attend a case who finds a car he cannot move in front of his garage. Surely that is an obstruction or something.

Major Lloyd-George: It sounds very like it to me. I am not a lawyer, but parking in front of someone else's house is not an offence. Whether in the case my hon. Friend has referred to of someone trying to get to his garage could be put down as an obstruction, I do not know. As a layman, I should have thought that that was a good description of it, but whether that is the law, I do not know. So far as the front of a house is concerned, it is not an obstruction to leave a car there.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Pay (Legislation)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the police pay increases recommended by the arbitration tribunal last December will be effected.

Mr. J. Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to introduce the necessary legislation to implement the undertaking given in respect of police pay.

Major Lloyd-George: The increases in pay in question have been in operation since 16th December, 1955. If, however, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring to the arbitrators' recommendation of May this year as regards the retrospective operation of these increases to 8th September, 1955, that is a matter which will require legislation. After consulting the police authorities, the Government have decided to make the necessary provision in the legislation which, as I said in my statement on 12th July, they propose to introduce to enable retrospective effect to be given to future police pay awards or agreements.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Whilst thanking the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he can hold out any prospect—since legislation is likely to go through the House very quickly—that this retrospective pay increase will be paid to the police before Christmas?

Major Lloyd-George: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member. I doubt whether the Bill will lead to much opposition in the House. As to the actual date, I have to ask him to await the Gracious Speech.

Mr. Harvey: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that there has been considerable misunderstanding among police forces about the reason for the delay and that it will meet the wishes of hon. Members on both sides of the House if he can bring the legislation forward at the earliest possible moment?

Motor Cars (Use)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that a recent instruction to the effect that officers of the

Criminal Investigation Department must travel by public transport unless the use of a police car is absolutely essential will not damage the efficiency of the force ; and if he will make a statement.

Major Lloyd-George: Directions as to the observance of economy in the use of police transport were given last April to all members of the Metropolitan Police force in view of the need for economy in public expenditure. The Commissioner is satisfied that the restrictions imposed are in no way harmful to the efficiency of the Criminal Investigation Department or of other branches of the force.

Mr. Greenwood: Is not this insistence on members of the Criminal Investigation Department travelling by public transport really rather a silly piece of cheese-paring in view of the way that money is being squandered in other directions, and could not the Home Secretary show rather more confidence in the officers employed by the C.I.D.?

Major Lloyd-George: The Commissioner has control of the operation of the police, and I would remind the hon. Gentleman that he is satisfied. I am also satisfied that there are a great number of duties which the police are called upon to do that could be carried out by public transport. I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that there is no curtailment of any kind in the strictly operational use of cars for patrol or other purposes.

Mr. Greenwood: Has the Home Secretary made any attempt to assess the cost to the public of the loss in time involved?

Major Lloyd-George: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that there must be many jobs which the police, whether C.I.D. or otherwise, can carry out by public transport without any loss of efficiency and without any operational effect. Surely it is right to get economy where possible?

Trunk and Toll Calls

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why police officers attached to stations in the area of the Metropolitan Police force have been instructed that no toll or trunk telephone calls can be made without the permission of a superintendent.

Major Lloyd-George: This instruction was issued in 1952 in the interests of economy and resulted in a substantial saving in the cost of trunk and toll calls. The Commissioner is satisfied that it has not prejudiced efficiency.

Mr. Greenwood: Here again, could not the Home Secretary show rather more confidence in the judgment and the sense of responsibility of the police in these various offices. It must be apparent to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that any economy will be more than outweighed by the loss in efficiency.

Major Lloyd-George: Here again I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I assume the Commissioner, who is responsible for the operation of the police force, ought to know what he is talking about, and he is satisfied that there is no loss of efficiency. In a case of emergency, any call, trunk or otherwise, can be put through without asking anybody.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Further Education (Fees)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education what will be the total Government annual saving as a result of his directing the London County Council to triple its evening class fees.

The Minister of Education (Sir David Eccles): Increases in further education fees proposed by the London County Council last spring and further increases resulting from Circular 307 will lead to an annual saving of about £27,000 in grant from my Department. Only in very few cases do fees have to be trebled to comply with the Circular.

Dr. King: Does the Minister think that this paltry sum warrants the intrusion and the risk of damaging a very great institution, the London evening schools? Will he watch carefully the effect of these new fees on the evening class population and, if it dwindles, will he return to the old charges?

Sir D. Eccles: The fact that the sum is very small cuts both ways. It is a very small addition, and no one has to pay more than l0d. a week. But if there should be a very marked change, I will certainly consider the position.

School Building (Economies)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education whether, in view of the protests made by the Hampshire Education Committee against Circular 301 and by the Southampton Education Committee against Circulars 301 and 306, he will now modify his proposals on the cost per place of school buildings and on the building programmes for the next two years.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir. I am satisfied that good schools can still be built within the cost limits in sufficient numbers to meet essential needs.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that the protests to which this question refers are not party protests and that this morning the Hampshire Education Committee, which is largely Conservative. again unanimously protested against the economy cut which the Minister is making in school building, especially when it discovered that eight or nine schools had been cut out of the school building programme? Will he not take note of the views of responsible people of both political parties in local government of the serious effect that these economies are having on school building?

Sir D. Eccles: In very difficult cases I do allow exceptions, but I see no reason why the Hampshire Education Authority could not, by efficient planning, build within the cost limits.

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education the average amount per school in the 1956–57 programme which will have to be secured by economies to achieve the £4 million which he expects to save by his decision, in Circular No. 301, not to increase the current cost limits of £154 and £264 per primary and secondary place, respectively.

Sir D. Eccles: The £4 million represents the amount by which the value of the 1955–56 building programme would have had to be increased to offset the rise in prices since April, 1955. I cannot usefully express this figure in terms of an average saving per school.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that this is not a Hampshire matter, just as it is not a Socialist matter, and the Association of Education Committees is repeatedly making representations to him


that this fixing of the figure is compelling local authorities to make economies in school building, to cut out things which they regard as essential, or to use substitutes which in the long run will waste public money? Will the Minister not give serious consideration to the recommendation of the Association of Education Committees?

Sir D. Eccles: I have been looking for substantial protests, and they have not come. As a matter of fact, my information is that practically all the authorities are able, by efficient methods, to build within the cost limits.

Miss Bacon: asked the Minister of Education how many local authorities have made representations to him about the postponement of their school building programmes.

Sir D. Eccles: Forty-seven.

Miss Bacon: In view of the fact that, when he introduced Circular 306, the Minister said that the postponement of the school building programme was due to building difficulties, will he now let those authorities who feel that they can go ahead with building do so, or was it not a case of building difficulties but merely part of the economy campaign?

Sir D. Eccles: As the hon. Lady knows, the programme for the current year is somewhat larger than it was last year. It is clear that local authorities have as much work in hand this year as they can do. The postponement refers to the 1957–58 programme, and we still have time to see whether we can add to that if the general building situation gets better.

Schools, Staffordshire (Understaffing)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education how many schools are at present unable to provide full-time education for their pupils on account of understaffing ; how many of these schools are situated in Staffordshire ; and what steps he is taking to help the local education authorities to provide proper facilities at these schools.

Sir D. Eccles: I know of two such schools, both in Staffordshire. I have just held a conference with representatives of

the local education authorities and teachers at which the problem of the distribution of teachers was thoroughly explored. But I cannot make a statement yet.

Mr. Swingler: While I appreciate that fortunately this problem is on a very small scale, is it not terrible that it should occur at all, and does it not call for really urgent action? Is the Minister not aware that Staffordshire Education Authority has made most strenuous efforts to overcome the shortage of teachers? Nonetheless, the situation calls for some action on his part, and will he do something to restrain the better-off authorities from further recruitment until there is general higher distribution of teaching talent?

Sir D. Eccles: I am glad to say that the Staffordshire Authority has recruited 170 more full-time teachers as at 1st October this year compared with a year ago and the two schools are expected to be in full service on the 29th of this month. I quite agree that it would be a good thing if we could secure a better distribution, but that requires the good will of the better-off authorities, and I hope that we shall get it.

Mr. J. Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that when I accompanied the deputation from West Bromwich Education Committee to him recently we came away feeling that he simply was not aware of the gravity of the problem in the Midlands? Will he go further and see what the problem is, so that something may be done about it?

Sir D. Eccles: The right hon. Gentleman got a very wrong impression, I am afraid.

Miss Lee: Is not the Minister aware that he gives the impression that he is taking this issue much more calmly than are the parents in Staffordshire? Lack of teachers and the bad conditions of the schools are not new problems. May we take it that this is the junior angle of "Setting the people free"?

Sir D. Eccles: This certainly is not a new problem, but it has been getting much better in the last few years.

Miss Lee: Worse.

Classes (Size)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education if he will state the numbers of classes of over 40 and over 50 pupils, respectively, in the primary and secondary schools of England and Wales at the latest date for which figures are available ; and how they compare with the figures for each of the last five years.

Sir D. Eccles: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: Before I study the figures, will the Minister indicate whether the tendency is for an increase or a decrease in the number of overcrowded classes in the last year?

Sir D. Eccles: They show an improvement for primary classes and a slight worsening for senior classes, but even so the senior schools' position is better than it was in 1951.

Following are the figures :

The numbers (for maintained and assisted schools other than Nursery or Special Schools) are set out in the following table :


Year (January)
Junior Classes
Senior Classes


Over 40
Over 50
Over 40
Over 50


1951
30,662
1,034
4,441
89


1952
35,163
1,180
3,863
60


1953
40,046
1,330
3,156
50


1954
40,447
1,145
3,304
44


1955
37,011
917
3,734
36


1956 (provisional)
33,589
621
4,181
64

N.B.—The figures for classes with over 40 pupils include those with over 50.

First-aid Classes, Sheffield

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Minister of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the considerable withdrawals from first-aid classes in the Sheffield region following upon the increase in fees from 5s. to 20s. ; whether he is aware of the importance of encouraging, rather than discouraging, those citizens who wish to equip themselves to cope with accidents in the home, the factory and in the streets ; and if he will withdraw the application of Circular 307 to such classes and so permit the local authorities themselves to decide on what increases in fees may be necessary.

Sir D. Eccles: I have not yet received enrolment figures from Sheffield. First-aid classes are certainly of great value, but students aged 21 or over can reasonably be expected to pay 20s. for classes covering two terms. I do not feel able to exempt these classes from the operaation of Circular 307.

Mr. Hynd: Even if the Minister refuses to withdraw the whole of Circular 307, will he not study this again and realise that first-aid classes are largely inspired and largely taken over by people inspired by a desire for public service, and that it would be a good investment for the country to provide such instruction free? Will he not again consider whether this type of class and others of a similar kind might not have special exemption from the provisions of the Circular?

Sir D. Eccles: It would not be a good thing to make exceptions, at least until I have seen the figures of enrolments.

Technical Education

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Minister of Education what progress has been made in the extension of facilities for technical education since the publication of the White Paper.

Sir D. Eccles: As the answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir I. Fraser: Are the figures satisfactory?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend will be satisfied.

Following is the Answer :
Apart from the opening of new buildings and extensions which were under construction before the White Paper was published the following developments in England and Wales have taken place :—

(i) The 1957–58 and 1958–59 building programmes have been approved. As the 1956–57 programme was approved before the White Paper was issued, local education authorities already know that they can start over £40(m) worth of the five-year programme of capital investment, totalling £70(m), outlined in the White Paper.
(ii) Eight colleges have been provisionally designated as Colleges of Advanced Technology : two of these designations have been confirmed and others will be confirmed shortly.
(iii) The National Council for Technological Awards has published its conditions for giving the Diploma in Technology.


and is now considering a number of applications for approval of courses.
(iv) I have had a meeting about regional co-ordination and inter-authority payments with representatives of local education authorities. An agreement has been reached, the result of which I announced in the House on 24th July last, which should go a long way towards removing the difficulties about out-county attendance.
(v) The number of sandwich courses has risen from 103 is 1955 to 168 in the current session.
(vi) Substantial increases of salary for technical college teachers recommended by the Burnham Committee have been approved.
(vii) A Committee, drawn from the National Advisory Councils on Education for Industry and Commerce and on the Supply and Training of Teachers under the chairmanship of. Dr. Willis Jackson has been set up to report on the supply and training of teachers for technical colleges.
The publication of the White Paper, and subsequent discussion of it in public and private, have made the whole country increasingly aware of the vital importance of technical education and have made a great difference to the climate of opinion in which the education service works.

School Meals Service

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Education what complaints he has received in respect to the food served in the school meals service ; and what steps are taken by his Department to ensure a reasonable state of efficiency and satisfaction in this service in all districts.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): My right hon. Friend has not received any complaints of this sort. He prescribes the standards which the service is expected to follow and it is inspected by H.M. Inspectors of Schools, in addition to the supervision exercised by the local education authorities, who are directly responsible for its administration.

U.N.E.S.C.O. (Dismissed Employees)

Mr. Younger: asked the Minister of Education whether, at the forthcoming conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation in New Delhi, he will urge that the judgments of the International Labour Organisation Tribunal in 1955, ordering

the reinstatement of seven dismissed employees of the organisation, should be implemented by the Director-General.

Sir D. Eccles: The award of the International Labour Organisation Tribunal provided both in the case of the three members with permanent contracts and in the case of the four with fixed term contracts for the payment of monetary compensation as an alternative to reinstatement. Compensation has in fact been paid to the three members who had permanent contracts. The Executive Board of U.N.E.S.C.O. decided that an advisory opinion should be sought from the International Court of Justice on the competence of the International Labour Organisation Tribunal in relation to the other four employees. I have seen yesterday's press reports which indicate that the Hague Court have confirmed the Tribunal's competence in this matter. It will now be for the organisation to give effect to the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Younger: Is it not the fact that the original recommendations of the I.L.O. Tribunal was quite positive for reinstatement and that the alternative of compensation was mentioned only because the Tribunal noted, quite correctly, that it had no executive authority to enforce its recommendation? Would it not be reasonable, therefore, for the delegation going to the general conference to insist that the delegation should carry out this recommendation, which was for reinstatement, and put weight behind this recommendation which the Tribunal itself was not able to do?

Sir D. Eccles: The British representative voted against going to The Hague Tribunal, and it is now up to the Director-General to decide what course of action to take. I cannot say whether it will come up at the conference.

Mr. Younger: Is it really the case that a national delegation, representing a Government which supports this organisation, to U.N.E.S.C.O. has no authority in this matter? Surely the Minister can tell us that the British delegation will take some initiative in view of the importance of this to all international institutions.

Sir D. Eccles: No, we must see what is proposed by the Director-General.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

Seretse Khama

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement regarding the conditions under which Mr. Seretse Khama has been permitted to return to Bechuanaland.

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement about the position of Seretse Khama.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Commander Allan Noble): As my noble Friend said in the statement he made in another place on 23rd October, Seretse Khama has renounced for himself and his children all claim to the Chieftainship of the Bamangwato Tribe. Seretse Khama and his uncle, Tshekedi Khama, have undertaken to co-operate fully with Basebolai Kgamane both in his capacity as African Authority of the Bamangwato and as Chairman of the Tribal Advisory Council which is to be formed. In this new situation Her Majesty's Government have agreed that Seretse Khama should be permitted to return to the Bechuanaland Protectorate as a private person and to take his family with him, and that both he and Tshekedi Khama should be free to play their part in the affairs of the Bamangwato Tribe.

Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman express to the Minister the appreciation of many of us that this decision has been reached? Is he aware that many of us have the greatest appreciation of the action of Tshekedi Khama and Seretse Khama in making these proposals to the Minister? Arising out of his reply, can the Under-Secretary give us any particulars of the Advisory Council? How is it formed? Is it the intention to make it a democratic council in future?

Commander Noble: I am grateful for what the hon. Member has said, and perhaps for once he has agreed with what I have said from this Box. I shall be answering Questions about the Advisory Council later, but not today.

Resident Commissioners (Appointments)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations the United Kingdom High Commissioner received regarding the appointment of Mr. Geoffrey Chaplin as Resident Commissioner of Basutoland.

Mr. Page: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will reconsider recent appointments of two South Africans as Resident Commissioners in Basutoland and Swaziland, respectively, with a view to allaying suspicions that such appointments have some bearing upon the possibility of the incorporation of the High Commission Territories within the Union of South Africa.

Commander Noble: The Paramount Chief Regent and also some organisations and individuals in Basutoland have made representations against the appointment as Resident Commissioner, of Mr. Chaplin, a member of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service who was born in South Africa. The Paramount Chief has explained that her representations are due to his place of birth and are not directed against him personally. Representations in support of the appointment have also been received.
My noble Friend's reply to the Paramount Chief Regent assured her that Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the High Commission Territories remains as it has often been stated. Hecannot agree that place of birth can be regarded as a bar to the appointment of anyone qualified for appointment to such a post.
This applies equally to the selection of Mr. Marwick as Resident Commissioner of Swaziland, with regard to whose appointment there have been no representations. Both Mr. Chaplin and Mr. Marwick are well qualified for the appointments and they will certainly carry out loyally the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Brockway: Do not these protests generally indicate the extreme sensibility of the populations of Basutoland and Swaziland about any suggestion of incorporation in the Union of South Africa? Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be


prepared to receive a deputation of chiefs from Basutoland who want to discuss this matter with him?

Commander Noble: What the hon. Member said in his opening remarks may well be, but Her Majesty's Government have always made the position and their policy about the Territories absolutely clear. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 10th July. My noble Friend would, of course, consider any proposal on the lines which the hon. Member has just suggested.

Mr. Page: Is it true that a delegation is coming from the Paramount Chief of Basutoland, and if so, is my hon. and gallant Friend receiving them?

Commander Noble: The Paramount Chief Regent has said that she will be coming to London and my noble Friend has told her that if she does so he of course will receive her.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In making these appointments to the Protectorate, does the hon. and gallant Gentleman's noble Friend consider the possibility of making them from the overseas services from other parts of Africa and the Colonies, thus avoiding the suspicion which arises over issues of this kind?

Commander Noble: Perhaps I may refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by his right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) when he was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, when he said, in very similar circumstances :
I have every confidence in the staff of the High Commission Territories, from whatever country they may have been recruited…I do not contemplate any change in the present method of recruitment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th November, 1949; Vol. 469, c. 230.]

Legislative Councils

Mr. Benn: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when it is proposed to establish legislative councils in Basutoland, Swaziland, and Bechuanaland.

Commander Noble: As Her Majesty's Government have frequently stated, it is their policy to encourage the formation of representative institutions in the High Commission Territories. These institutions are at present being developed at the local government level. In each of

the three Territories there is already an African Council with advisory functions. In Swaziland and Bechuanaland there are also European Advisory Councils and in Bechuanaland there is a Joint European and African Advisory Council. These Councils are consulted on all matters of importance affecting them. At the present stage of political development of the High Commission Territories, it would be premature to consider the establishment of legislative councils.

Mr. Benn: Without in any way running down the existing council, may I ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not recognise that we really have to take a fresh initiative in the Protectorates? Can he not hold out some hope of legislative councils, or at any rate that it is in contemplation by the Government?

Commander Noble: As I think the hon. Member probably knows, the Basuto have asked for a legislative council and my noble Friend has suggested that they should take such powers in matters affecting the Basuto only. That matter is now being considered by them. I think that our policy in this matter is the same as that of our predecessors ; good progress is being made and it would be quite wrong to try to "pressure cook" this kind of organisation.

Economic Development (Report)

Mr. Benn: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what decisions have been reached regarding the recommendations in the Gaitskell Report for Economic Development in Bechuanaland ; and what conditions to safeguard wages and promotion to skilled work are to be attached to concessions to mineral development.

Commander Noble: The Gaitskell Mission's recommendations concerning the survey of existing farms and the development of roads and water supplies have been adopted and work on them is proceeding. They also recommended the establishment of a pilot farm in the Western Kalahari and certain measures for the further development of the area. As, however, there is no shortage of land in the populated areas of Bechuanaland, it is unlikely that African settlers would be attracted to the Western Kalahari. It has, therefore, been decided to defer


action on these recommendations until the existing centres of African population have been fully developed.
As regards the second part of the Question, the High Commissioner is empowered to prescribe minimum wages in the Bechuanaland Protectorate and to establish Advisory Boards on wages. The desirability will be borne in mind of including in any mineral concessions provision that there shall be promotion to skilled work.

Mr. Benn: Without in any way wishing to "pressure cook" the High Commissioner, may I ask the Minister whether he will not take the example already shown in Uganda and see that it is really implemented, since African people are intensely suspicious of mineral concessions granted without these guarantees, which may cause great trouble in the future?

Commander Noble: As I think I have told the hon. Member on previous occasions, with regard to mineral concessions the High Commissioner is keeping in close touch with the chiefs.

Old-age Pensions

Mr. Benn: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will introduce a system of old-age pensions for Africans in the High Commission Territories.

Commander Noble: Under tribal law and custom in all three Territories, responsibility for the care of the poor of all ages in African society rests with the relatives. Where, for any reason, the relatives cannot provide for needy cases, the Government and the Tribal Administrations grant relief in the form of money, food and clothing.

Mr. Benn: Is not the Minister aware that, in the long run, the future of these Protectorates depends on them providing for Africans facilities comparable with those already available in the Union of South Africa? Would he not in future take such a complacent attitude as he has shown in his answer to this particular Question?

Commander Noble: I can assure the hon. Member that I do not take any complacent attitude, but I think that the House will agree that economic progress comes first.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Anglo-Australian Talks

Mr. Bottomley: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Anglo-Australian trade talks.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): The talks were adjourned in August to allow further study to be completed in both countries. They were resumed on 4th October and are continuing.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister how many broadcasts he has made in his official capacity in the last three months ; how many such broadcasts have been made by other Cabinet Ministers in the same period ; and what were the subjects covered by such talks.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): Apart from news interviews, I have made one broadcast on the Suez Canal situation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has also made one on the same subject and one on the occasion of United Nations Day. He has also taken part in a discussion programme.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say with whom the initiative lies in effecting these broadcasts? Secondly, will these talks count as party political broadcasts, because there is—[HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."]—indeed there-is—a feeling in the country that they have been used for that end. Is he aware that if this abuse of the B.B.C. continues the Government are playing with fire?

The Prime Minister: I hardly think so. The answer to the hon. Gentleman has enabled him to elicit how few broadcasts there have been. Of course, there are opportunities—and rightly so—for hon. Members opposite also to indulge in these practices if they feel that they have to. As to who originates the suggestion, it is sometimes from one quarter and sometimes from another. I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that I never originate it myself if I can possibly help it.

Mr. Woodburn: I take it that this also includes television broadcasts. Is the Prime Minister aware that they sounded, more like apologies than statements?

The Prime Minister: I should be ruled out of order by you. Mr. Speaker, if I expressed an opinion in this matter.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the Prime Minister consider himself and his colleagues bound by the 14-day rule in such talks as much as any other hon. Member of this House?

The Prime Minister: Ministerial broadcasts, from whatever party, are happily exempt.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (MEMORIAL PETITION)

Mr. Hyde: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the memorial petition which has been sent to him, signed by 2,500 people prominent in various walks of life in this country, urging Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation abolishing the death penalty ; and what steps he proposes to take.

The Prime Minister: I have read the memorial sent to me by the National Campaign for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. I stated the Government's intentions in regard to the death penalty on Tuesday last.

Mr. Hyde: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this document represents a more sane and balanced view of the question—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: It is out of order to ask for an expression of opinion.

Mr. Hyde: In the light of his assurance that Government policy would be based on the outcome of the debate in this House last February, would my right hon. Friend see that, in any relevant Measure under consideration, effect is given to the freely and repeatedly expressed will of the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to await the Bill to which I have already referred.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as I can make out, this is the first occasion since the days of Charles I that a group of distinguished citizens has found it necessary to call upon the Government to

govern themselves in accordance with the majority will of the House of Commons.

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister: I will answer with pleasure. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no attempt on the Charles I line—

Mr. Silverman: Do not lose your head over it.

The Prime Minister: —and no danger of decapitation.

Sir F. Medlicott: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the value and significance of this petition can be judged only if we can be told how many distinguished and prominent citizens refused to sign it?

The Prime Minister: I think both sides of the House understand that there are wide divergencies of opinion, that it would be quite possible for each of us to pronounce what the majority of the country thinks and that not one of us would have the right to lay down the law as to what the country did think.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can announce the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows :
MONDAY, 29TH OCTOBER—Committee stage of the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Committee and remaining stages of the Medical Bill [Lords], which is a Consolidation Measure.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Housing (Payments for Well-Maintained Houses) Order.
TUESDAY, 30TH OCTOBER—Report and Third Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which we hope to obtain by about 6 o'clock.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment No. 2) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 31 ST OCTOBE—Debate on an Opposition Motion relating to the Armed Forces.
THURSDAY, 1ST NOVEMBER—It is proposed to meet at 11 a.m. and Questions will be taken until 12 noon.
Then there will be a debate on the Report and Accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways, this being the first of the three days to be allocated for such debates on Reports from nationalised boards.
It is expected that Prorogation will take place at about 6 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when shall we have a favourable announcement from the Government—

Mr. Stokes: Never.

Mr. Lever: —about improved conditions for limbless ex-Service men, a subject in which the Prime Minister has expressed himself as being personally interested?

Mr. Butler: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance will pay atention to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I cannot make a statement on that this afternoon.

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE (ECONOMIES)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a further statement about economies in Government expenditure.
The Government set out to achieve savings of £100 million in this current year on services provided in the original Estimates as published. On 26th June I made an interim announcement of savings amounting to £76 million, of which £36½ million was on the defence programme, £14 million on defence expenditure by Civil Departments and £25½ million on other Civil Estimates.
Decisions have now been reached on further savings amounting to £17¼ million. Of this, £9 million is on the defence programme and £8¼ million on the Civil Estimates. Details will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Advance copies will be available in the Vote Office immediately.
With these further savings the total so far announced towards the £100 million is £93¼ million. I will make a further statement later about the balance. Among the items in the present instalment, I need comment on only two.
First, it is proposed to alter, as from 1st December, 1956, the method of charging for National Health Service prescriptions, the cost of which is today running at nearly 5s. an item. From that date the charge will be 1s. per item instead of 1s. per form. Existing arrangements for refunds will be continued. The saving will be £¾ million this year and £5 million in a full year.
Secondly, it is proposed to make a seasonal increase, from 7½ d. to 8d. a pint, in the retail price of milk as from 1st January, 1957, for the remainder of the winter. The net saving this year will be £4½ million. The charge for welfare milk will not be affected by this change.
I would remind the House that all these decisions about Government expenditure ignore, on the one hand, additional necessary expenditure not provided for in the original Estimates ; and that, on the other hand, they do not take credit for underspending on those Estimates during the year apart from those deliberately planned.
As regards the additional expenditure, Civil Supplementary Estimates were presented in July amounting to some £15 million, excluding Post Office expenditure to be covered by self-balancing revenue. On defence, additional expenditure is being incurred by the Services in connection with the Suez Canal crisis, but it is not yet possible to estimate how much this will amount to during the year.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Harold Wilson.

Mr. H. Wilson: Why is it that every time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any economies to announce they always fall on those who can afford them least, in this case the sick? I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman two further questions. First, will he explain to the House how he thinks he can reconcile these continuing and forced, induced, increases, in this case in milk, with all his preaching about the "plateau of price stability"?
Secondly, will the Chancellor, who, in April, told us that the whole structure of his Budget depended upon genuine economies of £100 million, not now admit to the House that most of the £76 million announced in June were, in fact, disposals of stocks, or once-for-all savings, and whether they were not, in any case, wiped out by his losses over the German negotiations?
Will the right hon. Gentleman not now admit that these "phoney" savings on defence have already been more than lost on Suez, as was made clear by the Secretary of State for War, who said that £7½ million had been spent on War Office account alone?

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of questions and I will try to answer them. The cost on the cost-of-living index of this seasonal change is estimated to amount to 0·22 in the retail cost of living. That is a negligible sum. With regard to the running down of stocks on current consumption, over these savings this represents not more than 3 per cent. of the savings. That answers two of the questions.
As for the change made in the prescriptions, we have to thank the Front Bench opposite for giving us the powers under the National Health Service (Amendment) Act, 1949, under which we are now acting. [HON. MEMBERS : "Cheap."] I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government of the day, in introducing that Bill, claimed that not merely economy was the reason for the change but the need—I use the words of the Minister—
to reduce excessive and…unnecessary resort to doctors and chemists".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1949 ; Vol. 468, c. 1019.]
I understand that this led later to some difficulties between the present Leader of the Opposition and the new Treasurer of the Labour Party.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is in a very noisy mood. I hope that further discussion will be kept at a level tone.

Mr. Macmillan: The differences between those two distinguished men have now, happily, been resolved.

Mr. Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that although this may be all right for Llandudno it will not go down in the House of Commons? Having failed to answer the questions which have been put to him, is the right hon. Gentleman really trying to tell the House that what was announced and what was necessary in 1949, four years after the end of the war, is now essential to the Chancellor's economic policy eleven years after the war and after five years of Tory Government?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir. I am only pointing out that hon. Members opposite wanted to do it but had not the courage to go through with it.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the right hon. Gentleman charge the 5 million old-age pensioners of this country with having unnecessary recourse to doctors? Has he fully considered what this will mean in practice to those people in the next few months? It is customary for doctors to prescribe on one prescription form for medicine, lotion, or liniment. What the right hon. Gentleman has said this afternoon means that old-age pensioners, who must have recourse to doctors—that is a necessity for old-age pensioners—in the coming months will have to pay 2s. or 3s. if they have medicine, lotion and liniment on the one form. In view of that, would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter?

Mr. Macmillan: I am very glad that the right hon. Lady has raised that point because that allows me to state, what I think she will like to know, that the arrangements for reimbursement cover all war pensioners who require treatment for their disabilities, all persons in receipt of National Assistance and all old-age pensioners and others who cannot meet the charges without hardship. They will be entitled to be reimbursed.

Mr. M. Lindsay: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his statement, may I ask him whether he can confirm that no economies are contemplated in the roads programme?

Mr. Macmillan: No economies have yet been arranged and as far as I know no such economies are contemplated.

Miss Herbison: Is the Chancellor aware that this latest despicable attack of his on the sick and the disabled


will be greatly resented, particularly as it will be noticed that it was received with cheering and happiness by his own back benchers? Is he also aware that there are many industrially disabled people who need prescriptions every week, whose standard of living is low and who, in face of this latest attack, will have a standard of living which will be shockingly low?

Mr. Macmillan: I will do the hon. Lady the courtesy of answering the first part of her question, although I thought it was put really more for the purpose of making her statement than of getting my reply to it. It was in the nature of a rhetorical question.
In reply to the second part of the question, which was much more important, I would call the special attention of the hon. Lady to what I have said about the reimbursement arrangements. They will continue and I think that at the moment they are satisfactory.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that the exclusions to which he has referred will be very clearly stated on the notices in chemists' shops? Is he aware that it has been difficult for those who are excluded from these charges to realise what their rights are?

Mr. Macmillan: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that point. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to see that it is made clear, so that there is no misunderstanding.

Mr. J. Griffiths: So that we can have it made perfectly clear, may I ask the Chancellor whether we are to understand his answer to mean that men disabled in industry who receive benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act will be entitled to claim exemption from these new increases?

Mr. Macmillan: I repeat that war pensioners—[HON. MEMBERS : "The disabled?] I must be allowed to say what I said before. I said that war pensioners who require treatment for their accepted disabilities, persons in receipt of National Assistance and any others who can show that they cannot meet the charges, including those drawing industrial injury benefits, will be able to claim reimbursement.

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but would he explain to the House how a poor person is to prove that he cannot afford the charges? How can a woman with a number of dependent children, who has to have recourse to a doctor, prove that she cannot afford the charges?

Mr. Macmillan: Exactly in the same way as she has been doing hitherto.

Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Government's decision to make economies in the National Health Service and other public services.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Government's decision to make economies in the National Health Service and other public services.
There is no doubt about the public importance of the matter, but as to the urgency I am quite clear that this does not fall within the Standing Order. I heard the statement say that one charge, for National Health Service prescriptions, is not to come into effect until 1st December, and the other—for milk—was, I think, to take effect from 1st January next. There will be a lot of water running beneath Westminster Bridge before either of those dates and plenty of opportunity to discuss these matters properly. I cannot find that the question comes within the Standing Order on the ground of urgency.

Mr. Wilson: Further to that, Sir, although there may or may not be an opportunity to discuss certain of the economies on the delegated legislation the Chancellor or the Minister of Health will have to bring in, I put it to you that, in view of the impending Prorogation, announced this afternoon, there will be virtually no further opportunity of stopping the Government from pursuing their crazy policy because, as we understood from the Chancellor—obviously, he wants


to get this into motion as quickly as possible—between the decision of the Government and its implementation there will be several weeks of administrative action.
Therefore, if we have to leave the matter until the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, or even later, for a House of Commons inquest on the question, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, it will then be too late to stop the Government in the course of action that they have proposed this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: I regret that I cannot share the view of the right hon. Member. It does not matter what preparations are being made administratively to put these

ECONOMIES IN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE : EFFECTS ON ESTIMATES, 1956–57 (Additional to those reported on 26th June, 1956—HANSARD, Cols. 275–280)


I. DEFENCE


Vote No.
Title of Vote
Reduction
Notes


NAVY ESTIMATES


£'000



8. III
…
…
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.: Contract Work.
…
1,725
Mainly revision of re-fit programme.


10
…
…
Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad.
…
75
Review of major works.





TOTAL
…
1,800



ARMY ESTIMATES


1
…
…
Pay, etc. of Army
…
800
Manpower adjustment.


4
…
…
Civilians
…
1,750
Reduction in requirements of civilian labour in Germany.


7
…
…
Stores
…
250
Reduction in purchases of accommodation stores in Germany.


8
…
…
Works, Buildings and Lands
…
500
Curtailment of certain works services.





TOTAL
…
3,300



AIR ESTIMATES


1
…
…
Pay, etc. of the Air Force
…
1,870
Mainly reduction in R.A.F. manpower requirements.


4
…
…
Civilians
…
550
Reduction in civilian manpower requirements at home and abroad.


5
…
…
Movements
…
250
Mainly reductions consequent on lower personnel strength.


6
…
…
Supplies
…
500


7
…
…
Aircraft and Stores
…
730
Reduction in equipment requirements.





TOTAL

3,900






TOTAL FOR DEFENCE ESTIMATES

9,000

increased charges into effect. Between the time of the announcement and the time the earliest of them can take effect there will be more than a month and in that time, if the House decides against the Government on a Motion or in any other way, no increased charges will be made. Had the charges to come in tomorrow or some time before the House would have an opportunity of dealing with them I should, of course, have considered the matter from a different angle, but I really cannot find it within my duty, in view of the time which is to elapse before the events can take place, to find that this matter comes within Standing Order No. 9.

Following are the details :

II. CIVIL


Class and Vote No.
Title of Vote
Reduction
Notes






£000



II. 2
…
…
Foreign Office Grants and Services.
750
Re-phasing of development loan to Jordan.


9
…
…
Colonial Services
1,250
Reduction in loan to Kenya (£1 million) and miscellaneous services.


IV. 1
…
…
Ministry of Education
+210
Increase in subsidy on school milk consequent on increase in retail price.


14
…
…
Scottish Education Department
+ 30
Increase in subsidy on school milk consequent on increase in retail price.


V.4
…
…
Ministry of Health
+410
Increase in subsidy on welfare milk consequent on increase in retail price.


5
…
…
National Health Services, England and Wales.
700
Increase from 1st December, 956, in charge for prescriptions from 1s. a form to 1s. an item.


5
…
…
National Health Services, England and Wales.
500
Reductions in stocks of hospital supplies.


10
…
…
Department of Health for Scotland.
+ 40
Increase in subsidy on welfare milk consequent on increase on retail price.


11
…
…
National Health Service, Scotland.
50
Increase in charge for prescriptions as above.


VIII. 2
…
…
Agricultural and Food Services
4,850
Seasonal increase in the maximum retail prices of all grades of milk by ½d. a pint from 1st January, 1957.


12
…
…
Department of Agriculture for Scotland.
340


—


Various Votes
250
Reduction of the average monthly expenditure on Travelling and Subsistence Allowances as from 1st November, 1956 by 5 per cent. of the average monthly provision for the year.


—


Various (Defence Expenditure by Civil Departments.)
250
Miscellaneous (including equipment, railways and ports).





TOTAL FOR CIVIL ESTIMATES
8,250






TOTAL : DEFENCE AND CIVIL
17,250

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put :

That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).

The House divided : Ayes 209. Noes, 173.

Division No. 288.]
AYES
[3.50 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gurden, Harold
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)


Arbuthnot, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Page, R. G.


Armstrong, C. W.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Ashton, H.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Partridge, E.


Atkins, H. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Balniel, Lord
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Banks, Col. C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pott, H. P.


Barter, John
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Baxter, sir Beverley
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Hill, John S. (Norfolk)
Redmayne, M.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Renton, D. L. M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ridsdale, J. E.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hornby, R. P.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Bidgood, J. C.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Robertson, Sir David


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bishop, F. P.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Body, R. F.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Russell, R. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hurd, A. R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Braine, B. R.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hyde, Montgomery
Sharples, R. C.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Shepherd, William


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hn. P. G. T.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Carr, Robert
Joseph, Sir Keith
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cary, Sir Robert
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Channon, H.
Keegan, D.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence Portsmth. W.)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Cole, Norman
Kerr, H. W.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Kershaw, J. A.
Teeling, W.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kimball, M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Craddcok, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lagden, G. W.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambton, Viscount
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Currie, G. B. H.
Leavey, J. A.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dance, J. C. G.
Leburn, W. G.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Touche, Sir Gordon


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legh, Hon. Peter (petersfield)
Turner, H. F. L.


Deedes, W. F.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vosper, D. F.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Eden, Rt. Hn. SirA. (Warwick&amp;L'm'tn)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Wall, Major Patrick


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Finlay, Graeme
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Fort, R.
Maddan, Martin
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Foster, John
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Marshall, Douglas
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Freeth, D. K.
Maude, Angus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Glover, D.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Woollam, John Victor


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter



Gower, H. R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Bryan.


Green, A.
Nairn, D. L. S.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Pargiter, G. A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hale, Leslie
Pearson, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (ColneValley)
Peart, T. F.


Anderson, Frank
Hamilton, W. W.
Pentland, N.


Awbery, S. S.
Hannan, W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bacon, Miss Alice
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Prootor, W. T.


Baird, J.
Hastings, S.
Pryde, D. J.


Balfour, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Randall, H. E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Healey, Denis
Rankin, John


Bonn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Redhead, E. C.


Benson, G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Reeves, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, William


Blackburn, F.
Holman, P.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Boardman, H.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hubbard, T. F.
Ross, William


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Royle, C.


Boyd, T. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shurmer, P. L, E.


Brockway, A. F.
Hunter, A. E.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Burke, W. A.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Janner, B.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Snow, J. W.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Sparks, J. A.


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C.
Steele, T.


Coldrick, W.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
King. Dr. H. M.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R. (Ipswich)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lewis, Arthur
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mabon. Dr. J. Dickson
Usborne, H. C.


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Viant, S. P.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McInnes, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Weitzman, D.


Donnelly, D. L.
McLeavy, Frank
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Dye, S.
Mahon, Simon
Wheeldon, W. E.


Edelman, M.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mason, Roy
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mayhew, C. P.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Monslow, W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Fienburgh, W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Finch, H. J.
Moss, R.
Winterbottom, Richard


Fletcher, Eric
Moyle, A,
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamllton)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Galtskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Oliver, G. H.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Gibson, C. W.
Oram, A. E.



Greenwood, Anthony
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Owen, W. J.
Mr. Wilkins an, Mr. Holmes.


Grey, C. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Orders of the Day — COPYRIGHT BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 40.—(BROADCASTS OF SOUND RECORDINGS CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS, AND DIFFUSION OF BROADCAST PROGRAMMES.)

4.0 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I beg to move, in page 52, line 16, to leave out from "and" to the end of line 33 and to insert :
the broadcast is an authorised broadcast, any person who, by the reception of the broadcast, causes a cinematograph film to be seen or heard in public, shall be in the like position, in any proceedings for infringement of the copyright (if any) in the film under section thirteen of this Act, as if he had been the holder of a licence granted by the owner of that copyright to cause the film to be seen or heard in public by the reception of the broadcast".
I wonder. Mr. Speaker, whether it would be convenient at this point to take the associated Amendment in page 53, line 30.

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Alport: These are both drafting Amendments. They make no change in the subsection as it at present stands, except to make it very much more simple and to make it conform to the new wording which, I think, is followed in both Amendments to page 52, line 35, one in the name of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) and the other in the name of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, which the House will be called upon to consider next.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. William Wells: I beg to move, in page 52, line 35, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 14 in page 53 and to insert :
and the broadcast is an authorised broadcast, any person who, by the reception of the broadcast, causes a programme to be transmitted to subscribers to a diffusion service, being a programme comprising a literary, dramatic or musical work, or an adaptation of such work, or an artistic work, or a cinematograph film, shall be in the like position, in any proceedings for infringement of the copyright (if any) in the work or film, as if

he had been the holder of a licence granted by the owner of that copyright to include the work, adaptation or film in any programme caused to be transmitted by him to subscribers to that service by the reception of the broadcast".
This, of course, is in many ways associated with the Amendment which stands in the name of the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Speaker: I think a discussion might quite conveniently include both of them. I could put them separately, of course, but they seem to me to be very much on the same point, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says.

Mr. Wells: Yes. Mr. Speaker, that is so, and, with respect, that would be the convenient course.
The issue that is raised by this group of Amendments is the most difficult and complicated question involved in this highly complex and difficult Bill—complicated in its nature and difficult because of the nature of the decisions which the House has to take upon the various Amendments that are tabled.
The underlying question behind all these Amendments is this. When a literary, dramatic or musical work is broadcast and transmitted to subscribers to a diffusion service, how should the owner of the copyright in that work be remunerated, and by whom? It may be useful to limit the discussion by saying that no issue arises here on these Amendments where the broadcast is originated by the British Broadcasting Corporation or by the Independent Television Authority. The question here only arises where a broadcast is originated overseas.
What our Amendment does in relation to the Amendments tabled by the Government is to retain with greatly improved wording the position reached after prolonged debate in Standing Committee. To explain what this is, it is, I fear, necessary to look in detail into the history of the matter. This Bill was introduced in another place, and the first question that one must ask is in what state in relation to this issue did it reach this House from that other place? That was tersely and, with his accustomed happiness of phrase, summarised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in the Second Reading debate.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said :
The next point with which I wish to deal is this difficult technical question of the broadcast relays, raised again by the hon. Members for Rossendale and Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), and my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop). It is quite true that this Bill does not give copyright protection to works which are piped by the operation of broadcast relay stations. That is clear from Clause 2 (5) and Clause 46 (3) (a).
The position was not quite clear under the old law, but now it is clear under this Bill. As I understand it, from what hon. Members have said, there is no particular difficulty in the way that the matter has worked in this country up to now, by reason of the fact that the copyright owners receive their fees from the B.B.C. based on the inclusion of the relay audiences. These audiences are taken into account because the relay companies require Post Office licences, and the B.B.C. pays the Performing Right Society on the basis of all holders of Post Office licences.
I appreciate that although there is nothing particularly wrong in the present operation, there are certain apprehensions. There is the apprehension with regard to television which was voiced by various hon. Members. There is the position in the Colonies, and in particular in Hong Kong and Malta, to which reference has been made today, and I suppose there is also the position concerning foreign broadcasts which are picked up and piped in this country.
We should like to meet those apprehensions so far as we fairly can without infringing any of the principles of copyright law. We have been thinking about it and we are continuing to try to find appropriate solutions. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General is going to discuss the matter with the representatives of the relay companies, and I hope that by the time we get to the Committee stage I shall be able to be more clear and comprehensive in what I have to suggest on this point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1956 ; Vol. 553. c. 808–9.]
Indeed, with all respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, although he was quite clear, he could not have been less comprehensive because, in fact, he made no suggestions at all. I am not blaming him at all for that.
On the Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) had voiced apprehensions on behalf of the copyright owners in this respect, and he said :
One other provision which I wish to touch upon is that relating to the relay companies. That provision, at the moment, is, I believe, another example of the way in which, no doubt quite unintentionally, we are eating away the rights of the composers. Here again, I think that the Copyright Committee did the problem less than justice. There is only one paragraph—paragraph 120—which

relates to the relay companies, and in that it is stated :
'We do not suggest any alteration in the present relationshihp between the Postmaster-General, the B.B.C. and the relay companies
But, under the Bill we are now going to say that the operations of the relay companies do not constitute public performances. That is a point of view which, at the moment. I do not feel prepared to accept."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 4th June, 1956; Vol. 553, c. 732–3.]
It is important to emphasise that my hon. Friend at this stage used those words because this matter has aroused a great deal of interest and, indeed, apprehension outside the House, and I think that many of my hon. Friends have been somewhat disturbed to think that after the statements he made on Second Reading in support of our interest on behalf of the copyright owners, we should now appear—and I say only "appear" because it is not the reality of the matter—to be backing the interests of the relay service companies against the interests of the copyright owners.
From the very start, we were most anxious that the proper interests of copyright owners should be respected, and those of my hon. Friends who have received representations on this score, and who have not taken part in the proceedings upstairs, really need have no apprehensions about it.
When we came to the Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and I put down a series of Amendments designed solely to raise the widest possible discussion. But the Government moved what is now Clause 2 (5, e) of the Bill. That Clause, which is within the knowledge of the House, states that
The acts restricted by the copyright in a literary, dramatic or musical work are…(e) causing the work to be transmitted to subscribers to a diffusion service.
After a lengthy debate in Standing Committee, we voted against the Amendment proposed by the Government which incorporates Clause 2 (5, e) into the Bill, but we voted against it on the failure of the Government to give certain assurances as to its practical effects. The Government subsequently moved a new Clause the effect of which, like the Government's present Amendments, was to make the relay companies liable for the payment of fees.
We moved, and carried against the Government, an Amendment designed to ensure that the copyright owner shall


negotiate with the broadcaster for a certain fee to include relay rights, leaving, of course, the remedy clear against the relay company where the original broadcast was not the subject of a proper agreement and where, in fact, it was pirated, in which circumstances, under the normal principles of common law, a civil wrong has been committed within the jurisdiction of the court, and the relay company is responsible.
In the series of Amendments which the Government are putting down today, the Government are seeking to reverse the position reached after prolonged debate and reached with the support of hon. Members on both sides in Standing Committee.
The Copyright Committee brought in its Report in 1951. Admittedly, the Copyright Committee, in its otherwise mainly admirable document, did deal quite inadequately, in my opinion, with the very difficult issues raised by the problem of rediffusion. But, having made allowance for the fact that perhaps the Government did not receive all the help it might expect on this particular issue, I must say that the Government remained the arbiter, and the sole arbiter, of the time at which they should introduce this Measure in this House or in another place.
Who would have complained if the Copyright Bill had been postponed until next Session? It might, indeed, have saved the Government from entering into other legislative commitments which, while received with acclaim in the heady air of Llandudno, may stand less well up to serious examination on the Floor of this House.
If the Government had not introduced this Measure in the present Session, it would indeed have been a Session very bare of Government legislation, but I think that the House and the country are well accustomed, after nearly five years of Conservative Government, to having a very inadequate legislative programme.

Mr. Philip Bell: If the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) expects to get any support from this side, he might, I think, be a little more tactful.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is all very amusing and pleasant, but it is out of order.

Mr. Wells: If I may just be allowed to say a word in reply to the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), I never base any political calculations on expectations that hon. Gentlemen opposite are going to do what, from their words, one might expect them to do. We shall have to wait and see.
The issue is now before us, and the question we have to ask is : what is the case for reversing the all-party decision of the Standing Committee? I should like to be quite fair, and, if I may, I will quote from the letter I have received from the General Manager of the Performing Right Society. I have received his permission to quote it, and I do so because I think it states the case for the Government in its most succinct and neat form. I should like to deal with the case which Mr. Walter presents. In his letter to me, he says :
I am sorry to see from the Amendment you have tabled in respect of Clause 40 that you still cannot go as far as the Government has in its own Amendment. Our difficulty is that when a foreign broadcasting station makes its contract with the local composers' society (which as P.R.S. does in England, represents composers of all nationalities) the station must necessarily be 'authorised to broadcast', even though the payment is related only to the listeners in the country where the broadcasting station is established.
Thus, the station makes no payment in respect of the English audience organised in this country by the diffusion services. The station is unlikely even to have any knowledge of the fact that its programmes are being picked up and relayed to a fresh audience ; certainly, it has no control over the diffusion services operations. Yet, under your Amendment the diffusion services can escape liability to the author on the ground that the broadcast was 'authorised'. I do sincerely hope that even at this late date you will agree that the author ought to have, in respect of an operation taking place in this country, a remedy against those who are conducting the operation, and should not be told to try to get a fee from the foreign broadcaster, who is not liable under his national law."'
I should be the first to concede that the problem raised by that letter is a real one ; but, although genuine enough, it is a problem purely on the technical level. It is one of those problems which look very complicated and difficult for those, like most hon. Members, who are not familiar with the intricacies of the copyright world. It is possible to explain the simplest engineering problem in terms that make it appear one of incredible difficulty to one who is not an engineer.
When one comes to this particular problem, one is dealing with Performing Right Societies in different countries, highly organised bodies with the best legal advice that they wish to have available to them, free to negotiate any arrangements which they choose and to which they can come.
Therefore, it really is not, as it seems to us, a very difficult task to set the Performing Right Societies to ask them to negotiate fresh arrangements with the parties with whom they deal in their own countries by which, when arrangements are made, they can cover the possibility that diffusion of the services will take place in just the same way as that contingency is provided for in arrangements with the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.
There is no magic difficulty about negotiating international agreements. There is no insuperable barrier to enforcing rights in foreign courts. There are, of course, countries which are difficult, but this is a sphere in which I venture to say that hard cases and exceptionally difficult cases make very bad law. In the ordinary way, it is a quite simple procedure for those who have the know-how, and I think that the House can rest well assured that the owners of copyright have at their disposal resources which are very adequate for dealing with this problem.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now be good enough to go on and deal with the situation which would arise if the foreign broadcasting stations said, "No, we are not disposed to negotiate an agreement to cover an audience in a foreign country with whom we are not primarily concerned "?

Mr. Wells: That is a very hypothetical difficulty. Why should a broadcasting station take that line? Provided that the country—I always make this proviso, for otherwise the whole question does not arise—is a party to the Copyright Convention, provided that it accepts the basic principles of copyright law, it has to make the choice of either using the material or not using it. I cannot believe that any serious broadcasting organisation which wished to employ material would refuse to use it simply because a rather modest addition—and in the nature

of the case it must be a rather modest addition—to the fees otherwise claimable is made.
Of course, if one is speaking of countries which are not parties to the Copyright Convention, the issue does not arise, because in that event the relay companies are plainly liable for breach of copyright if they redistribute, as, equally, they are liable if through inadvertance or any other cause a broadcast originated in a country which is a party to the Convention is not covered by a proper copyright agreement.
What is our case for presenting the matter in the way that we do and for moving our Amendment? Fundamentally, we say, it may be no particular hardship to the relay companies to negotiate first with the Performing Right Society, but in our opinion the public interest is better served by an agreement or type of agreement comparable with the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. agreements. In our view, they are more in the public interest, because they ensure, or tend to ensure, stable prices, which are equally to the advantage of the public and of copyright owners. Our first duty is to protect the public.
It may well be that the Government Amendments will not lead to any material increase in the charges made to subscribers to diffusion services, but the Government have refused to accept responsibility for conducting any inquiry into the economics of rediffusion. For that reason, to move as the Government are moving today is to take a risk and one for which, in our opinion, there is no justification whatever.
We must protect the listeners. The subscribers to the diffusion services almost all come from the lower income groups. There could be a real hardship to them. In our opinion, there could not be any real hardship to the composers. We have put forward a compromise which, we believe, is just and which, we hope, will commend itself to the House, as it did to the Standing Committee.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I beg to second the Amendment.
We had long discussions in Standing Committee and I think that all of us who are interested understand the case very well indeed. We were affected by two aspects of the whole problem. One


was that the Committee was determined to scrutinise most carefully the whole matter so far as it affected the just remuneration of authors ; and the Committee showed itself determined to protect the inalienable right of the author to proper and just remuneration.
With that, however, there was a second matter. We realised that there was an implication that roughly 1 million people, which means some hundreds of thousands of households, whom the Assistant Postmaster-General rightly described as being among the poorer households of the country, were the very people who in the main make use of the diffusion service. At first, it appeared to us that an added burden would rest upon them and the Committee found itself unwilling to add that burden.
As we went forward, it became clear from the helpful observations of the Assistant Postmaster-General and of the Parliamentary Secretary, although this was more particularly the province of the Assistant Postmaster-General, that there were certain things upon which we could be utterly agreed. They are worth mentioning and I hope I am putting them fairly. One of them was that, certainly in the United Kingdom, radiodiffusion is never a second performance. That, I think, we all agreed upon and it came to us in the first place from the Assistant Postmaster-General.
Another point made by the hon. Gentleman was that the head copyright owner is not entitled to a second royalty ; that, too, we were all agreed upon. So that, in the end, we began to realise that what we were discussing was not only the protection of the million subscribers who make a particular use in order to get television or radio in this way and do so in the main because it involves no capital expenditure for themselves. It was not only they whom we had to consider, but the author himself, whom we were driving to two authorities for his remuneration instead of to one authority.
If I am right in this, I think that the Government have made a sad and serious mistake. There is no evidence that if we give way to the Government's view, the head copyright owner will be better off than if he is left alone. Indeed, if there is any change he must be worse off, for he now must go to two sources for

his just remuneration, and this makes life more complicated for him than it has been in the past.
4.30 p.m.
We know that the Assistant Postmaster-General led us to believe that Radio Luxembourg was rather different from the broadcasting of another nation, such as Germany. He accepted that Radio Luxembourg is a commercial broadcasting station which receives its revenue as a result of and in proportion to the number of listeners it gets, particularly here in Britain and particularly to English broadcasts. It would be rather absurd, when we come to think about it, that they should get any fee or that there should be a further fee paid by the diffusion companies in this country, who are doing the very thing that Radio Luxembourg wants them to do.
Indeed, if there were to be any obligation by the diffusion companies in this country to pay any fees at source, as it were, to Radio Luxembourg, I can imagine they would have a good case if they went to the Assistant Postmaster-General and said, "You must vary our terms of contract which we have with you. We pay you two guineas or three guineas, or whatever it may be, as the full and proper fee for every subscriber in Britain, and if we have to pay a further fee to Radio Luxembourg, you must allow us to charge Radio Luxembourg for the listeners we provide for them." Everyone knows that the diffusion companies are not allowed to approach any broadcasting stations and ask for any remuneration from them for picking up their relays and transmitting them throughout this country.
Where Germany is concerned, it appeared to the Assistant Postmaster-General to be different, for he advised us that they were broadcasting essentially for their own people and did not take into account the fact that what they broadcast would be picked up outside. We did our best to explain to him what I know the hon. Gentleman knows full well—that it seemed to us to be invidious to divide people in this country into those who can hire a receiver on weekly payments or purchase one outright or by means of hire purchase, and then leave them utterly free to do what they wish to do, to get any station they want to which they are free to listen, but


that those who receive their programmes from the diffusion companies, together with the company that gives them the broadcast, must pay more, or at least must pay something.
I would not dream of entering into a discussion on the financial side of the matter. I do not understand it, but it is the principle that it is involved, and I prefer to think of that principle and that alone. To me, it does not matter whether £1,000 or £1 million is involved. If the principle is right, this will go through ; if the principle is wrong, I think the Amendment which I am now seconding should be accepted.
There is a conflict of evidence as to whether broadcasting stations, when they pay the remuneration to authors and performers, do or do not take into account the fact that to some extent the broadcast will be picked up outside the territory of that country. Indeed, the Performing Right Society has, I believe, said that it is taken into account, and that the Dutch broadcasting stations take into account the fact that the broadcast will be picked up by the British, and, vice versa, that British broadcasting stations, when they pay remuneration, do take into account the fact that Continental countries will also be listening.
The real point is that the Performing Right Society has a very deep interest in this matter. The Society has said that it would like either the status quo, that is, the original position before the Bill was presented, or the Bill as amended by the Standing Committee. As the Society is the most interested party and represents all the very people for whom we are now legislating and whom we wish to protect, why cannot we take its advice?

Mr. Alport: I hope it may be convenient to the House if I intervene now to place the arguments in favour of the Government's case in direct juxtaposition to those advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). My hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will be available, if necessary, to answer any points that may be brought forward during the course of the debate.
I do not intend to be tempted into the paths of party controversy which the hon. and learned Member found himself following during his speech. I am quite certain that it is the wish of both sides of the House to achieve an equitable and proper solution of what he quite rightly said is an extremely difficult and complicated point. Especially, I do not want to take any particular stand on a drafting point, although the hon. and learned Gentleman agreed very fairly during our previous discussions that, at this point in considering the Bill, its drafting is of some considerable concern to the House.
I would call attention to the fact that the only definition of an "authorised broadcast" which the Bill will contain is that inserted, or which we hope will be inserted, by the Government Amendment in page 53, line 30, which we considered in conjunction with a previous Amendment, and in which it is defined as—
'a broadcast…made…with the licence of the owner of the copyright.
The "owner of the copyright" in this context can only mean the person who owns the copyright given by United Kingdom law. It would not include the person who owns a right equivalent to copyright given by the law of a foreign country.

The Amendment which the hon. and learned Member moved, therefore, would not be effective in achieving the Opposition's intention, except perhaps in exceptional cases in which the same person owns both the United Kingdom copyright and a right conferred by foreign law in the country from which the broadcast takes place. That, however, is a drafting problem, and I wish to apply myself to the general principles which I think are at issue.

I am sure that there is an increasing number of hon. Members who have followed this Copyright Bill who find the solution put forward by Sir Alan Herbert recently to be one which commends itself to them. A burst of flame and a puff of smoke and lo! a solution ; and the copyright problem in this country is solved, if not for forty years, at any rate for the time being. However, this Bill is not for burning, and in spite of its complexity we have to see it through to the end.

The hon. and learned Gentleman outlined in some detail, during the various stages of the Bill's passage, the previous


progress of this problem of relay. I do not want to go over the whole of the ground again, but to draw the attention of the House to certain points which, I think, are important to a full understanding of the Government's case. I do this because it is alleged—I think it was inferred by the hon. and learned Gentleman—that we have not been entirely consistent in our approach to this problem.

Mr. W. Wells: I certainly would not blame the hon. Gentleman for not being consistent in his approach to the problem, because the problem is a very difficult one. It is very natural that at different stages in the argument the matter presents itself in a different way to one's mind. It has certainly happened to me. What I would blame the Government for, and not the hon. Gentleman, is presenting the Bill to Parliament before they had heard the arguments more exhaustively than, from the admissions made by the Parliamentary Secretary during the Second Reading debate, it seems they did.

Mr. Alport: I cannot accept the hon. and learned Government's interpretation of the position. What happened was that a distinguished and important Committee, the Copyright Committee, sat for some time considering the whole of this subject. It did not include more than a passing reference to the question of relaying, and, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, no one was more emphatic in condemnation or criticism of this than his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) during his Second Reading speech. It seems to me perfectly logical and proper that when a Bill is first presented, as this was, in another place, it should follow closely the recommendations of that Committee, and that it should be the responsibility of this House during its consideration of the Bill to decide whether any additions or subtractions should be made to or from the general principles recommended by the Copyright Committee.
That was certainly made clear by the fact that before the Bill left another place, in response to the initiative of the Opposition, particularly to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, I think it was, the Lord Chancellor had already undertaken to consider what action was necessary to repair this omission.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that Copyright Committee made no recommendation whatsoever along the lines of, or even approaching, the Government's Amendment?

Mr. Alport: I have already drawn attention to the paucity of the reference in that Committee's Report to relay, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Walsall, North has done precisely the same thing as also, indeed, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale did during his Second Reading speech.
However, that is not the point at issue. The point is that by the time the Bill was taken into consideration in another place attention had been drawn to this omission by the Copyright Committee by inference, but certainly by a noble Lord speaking from the Opposition benches, and as I was saying, an undertaking was given by the Lord Chancellor that consideration would be given as to what action was necessary to repair this omission.
During the Second Reading of the Bill in this House, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, there were a number of references to it, and I think it was quite clear from the references which he quoted from the speech by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government were at that time, and had been since the undertaking given by the Lord Chancellor, searching round to ensure that any solution that they provided or proposed for this problem would be an acceptable and just one. We have noticed from our own experience of discussing this, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said in a recent intervention, that our attitude to this problem necessarily changes because of its essential complexity.
4.45 p.m.
The delay which may appear to have taken place was the result of the fact that the Postmaster-General was properly and responsibly discussing the problem with the relay industry. Accordingly, it was not until just before the Committee stage that a series of Amendments was tabled by the President of the Board of Trade to bring relay into the scope of copyright.
I turn to discuss very briefly the principles upon which the policy of the Government has been based ever since the


tabling of those Amendments. The Government have based their policy upon two principles. The first, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central recognised in his speech, is that the head copyright owner should receive just remuneration for the use of his property by the relayer, and that, consequently, nothing should be included in this Bill to prevent him from doing so. Our second principle is that in no case should he be entitled to be paid twice in respect of the same relay audience for the use of his property by a relay company.
I will deal with the second of those principles first. We have made effective provision in this Bill by the various Amendments which have been proposed—some of which, I should add, were to meet points of view expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly in connection with Radio Luxembourg—to see that that second principle is carried into effect. The copyright owner gets his payment for the use of his work by the B.B.C. or I.T.A. on the basis of the broadcasting licences current, and we make it clear in Clause 40, the Clause now under consideration, as simplified by our Amendment, that he will not be entitled to a second fee for the relaying of his work.
Earlier, by Clause 24, we have enabled disputes between relay companies and such bodies as the P.R.S. to be brought before the Performing Right Tribunal. If a dispute of that kind relates to a licence to relay foreign broadcasts, then, under Clause 28, the Tribunal has to see that a relay company is not made to pay charges which have already been covered in the licence given to the broadcasting authority in the foreign country by the head copyright owner in that country.
This is recognised by the relay companies, and now, I think, by hon. Gentlemen opposite, as safeguarding them from the liability for having to pay copyright fees for programmes from commercial stations such as Radio Luxembourg who already pay a fee on the basis of advertising revenue which, in turn, takes into account the number of listeners reached both by direct reception and by reception from subsequent rediffusion or relay. Therefore, we have narrowed down very considerably indeed the liability of the relay industry in this matter.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will the hon. Gentleman define what that liability is now?

Mr. Alport: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will be kind enough to allow me to develop in my own way what is a somewhat complicated argument I think he will find that I shall define that liability very carefully.
It is in respect of the relaying of foreign stations which are not of a nature similar to that of Radio Luxembourg.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is very important, because it might narrow the margin of the disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and those who are seeking to protect the position of the relay services. The greatest service that could be done to the discussion now would be to define plainly what will now be the liability of the relay services.

Mr. Alport: I have already explained that to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was explained to him in the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. Therefore, I hope he will feel that we have done our best to ensure that he, amongst other hon. Members, is clear about this issue. I shall refer to that issue—the extent of the liability—now, and if the hon. and learned Member will allow me to develop my argument I shall be very grateful.
The liability of the relay companies has been very substantially reduced, and we are concerned only with the problem of how the head copyright owner gets just remuneration for the relaying of his work in this country from a foreign station which is under no obligation to pay a fee to the head copyright owner in respect of a relay audience here. I hope that that makes the point clear to the hon. and learned Member.
It has been suggested that foreign stations at present pay in respect of all listeners, and here I quote from a letter on behalf of the relay companies,
whether by relay or ordinary receivers and whether in the country of origin or elsewhere.
That is the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. That, however, is strongly contested, as


hon. Members will have seen if they have studied recent correspondence in The Times. It is hotly contested by the Performing Right Society, and it may be that there has been some misunderstanding in this matter between the Relay Services Association and the Performing Right Society. But looked at objectively it seems most unlikely that a foreign broadcasting body would be willing to pay a fee for a United Kingdom relay audience any more than the B.B.C. could be expected to pay a fee for an audience which receives its service through a relay organisation abroad.
If I have carried the House with me in the argument as far this—and I realise that it is a complicated one—I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this proposition, which I have just enunciated, is confirmed by a resolution passed by the International Federation of Authors' and Composers' Societies, which comprises 60 societies in 32 countries, a copy of which was sent to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
This resolution refers to the
exception provided in the Bill to the author's right to communicate broadcasts to the public by means of a diffusion service.
It goes on to draw attention to our obligation under Article 11 bis and
respectfully draws the attention of the British Government to the grave consequences which may eventually result from the said provision in the Copyright Bill if it should be maintained.
The provision referred to is the Clause as amended by hon. Members opposite in Committee, and by the Amendment which we are now considering.
That is surely strong evidence that if the owner of a copyright is left to get his just remuneration from the foreign broadcasting organisation he will not do so. Although, for reasons of convenience and in accordance with our rights under the Brussels text, we have recognised that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. make payment in respect of relay listeners in this country to the head copyright owner, we cannot take this line in respect of foreign stations. If we try, as the Opposition wishes us to do in the Amendment, it will mean that the head copyright owner will not get his just remuneration.
The hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North said that it would be quite

easy for a powerful body—and these bodies are very powerful—like the Performing Right Society to make an agreement through its opposite number in a foreign country to ensure that a proportion of the fee paid by the broadcasting organisation to the head copyright owner was in respect of relay audiences in this country. Not only does it seems to us improbable, but I think that the hon. and learned Member minimised the weakness of the position of the owner of the head copyright in this matter. It will not be so easy for him to make that contract even if he is supported by, or acts through, such a powerful organisation as the P.R.S.
After all, the head copyright owner has to decide whether he will not allow his work to be performed and so lose the whole of his fee, or allow his work to be performed and take as much of the fee as the broadcasting authority will give him. By that I mean the part of the fee in respect of the listening public in the country concerned, exclusive of any listening public outside the country concerned. I suggest that he is in a very weak position indeed and that the practice would be that the broadcasting authority would not include in the fee any recognition of the fact that the work was being "used" by an audience outside the country of origin.
The second question is whether the relay companies should be made responsible for this payment. It has been suggested that such an obligation would place an unfair burden on the relay services, and not only on the services but, what is more, on the subscribers to the relay service, who the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central alleged would have to carry this burden. A reply to the hon. Member's point was made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North when, in Standing Committee on 24th July, the hon. and learned Member said, referring to this point :
We are not convinced on this side of the Committee that those practical inconveniences"—
that is the deleterious effect on subscribers having to pay more—
need exist at all. There has been a great deal of propaganda, to an extent to which one or two of my hon. Friend, though not myself, have had reason to take exception. We have had no hard figures"—


that is from the relay companies—
which have suggested that the implementation of the Convention will lead to an increase in the charge to the British consumer. It may be that that result will follow, but the interests of the relay companies are widespread and their financial interests are very great. Had evidence existed, it would have been within their power to adduce it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 24th July, 1956 ; c 494–5.]
5.0 p.m.
Therefore, if I may say so with respect, it was a little late in the day when the hon. Gentleman said a few minutes ago that we were remiss for not having made some inquiries into the effect of our proposals upon the relay subscribers, when he knows perfectly well, and has admitted, that if any evidence were forthcoming the relay associations would be the last to be remiss in putting that forward.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there are thousands of people who depend on the relay or rediffusion services because the B.B.C. cannot reach them? That is particularly true of my part of the country. If the hon. Gentleman tells us that improvements have been made recently, I would agree, but at a cost which the average subscriber cannot possibly meet, so I should like him to pay attention to that point.

Mr. Alport: I am grateful for the point made by the hon. Gentleman, because it helps me with my next one. His hon. and learned Friend has said there is no evidence that any additional cost or total of payments in respect of head copyright paid by the relay companies will involve an additional charge to their subscribers. As has been pointed out, it is important that we should regard this as what it is, a controversy not between the subscribers to a relay service and the head copyright owners, but between, on the one hand, the Performing Right Society, and, on the other, the relay companies, which are powerful and legitimately wealthy organisations concerned with providing a valuable service in parts of Wales and in many marginal areas in different parts of the country. I am not questioning that, but they are engaged in a legitimate business for gain. It seems to us no reason, and no valid reason at any rate, that in these cases the author should not be able to look to

them for his just remuneration, since he cannot look elsewhere with equal effectiveness.

Mr. W. Wells: I do not want to keep on popping up, and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. However, I want to draw his attention to the fact that as far back as the debate on the Amendment to Clause 2, I asked him to give assurances. I said :
Will the Assistant Postmaster-General also consider the economic side of the question before we reach the next stage of the Bill? Will he consult the relay companies and see whether there is any justifiable reason for raising the rates to subscribers if the Amendment goes through in its present form?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 21st June, 1956 ; c. 84.]
It was because we got no help on that, amongst other questions, that we divided in Committee on Clause 2 (5, e).

Mr. Alport: I am sorry to go back to what is of great interest to those of us who sat on Standing Committee B but may not be of so much interest to the rest of the House. I said on that occasion, and I think it is still a valid answer, that the hon. and learned Gentleman should not ask a Government Department, the Post Office, to intervene in what is an entirely commercial arrangement between the companies and their subscribers. Later in the Committee stage the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself come genuinely to the conclusion that if there was any serious evidence of the effect on the subscribers the relay associations would have put it forward.
I am sorry. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to have kept the House so long and I am coming now to the last point of my argument—

Mr. F. P. Bishop: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, does he not remember that in c. 75 of the Report of Standing Committee B, an estimate was given of the extra cost which would be involved for the rediffusion companies, and that a figure of £50,000 was mentioned?

Mr. Alport: My hon. Friend, who I know has considerable knowledge of this matter, is correct. An estimate was given and, as far as I can remember, it was £25,000 to £50,000 which, I think the House will agree was a very wide one.


The original estimate was given by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun). Subsequently those interested in this matter closed on the maximum figure of £50,000, but I pointed out that it was no estimate which would guide the Committee or the Government or anybody else in this matter.

Mr. H. E. Randall: This is an important point. Is the Assistant Postmaster-General in a position to say to the House this afternoon that there will not be a rise in the charges that are made to the subscribers? We are getting estimates. That unqualified statement, however, has not so far been made, and it would be important if a statement could be made that there is no reason to believe that the charges would rise. Can the hon. Gentleman say even that?

Mr. Alport: If the worst occurred the increase would be of the order of one farthing a week, but it would be quite wrong for a Minister standing at this Box to give an undertaking on behalf of a private authority, legitimately in business, as to how it should conduct its affairs in the future. After all, the relay associations have recently raised their charges to their subscribers, irrespective of anything in this Bill. The hon. Gentleman is asking too much. This is something which must be left to the companies.
I was about to pass to the last point which I want to make to the House. Up to the present I have only made a passing reference to the terms of the Brussels Text of the Berne Convention and, in particular, to something that haunted us throughout the Committee stage, Article 11 bis. During that stage my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) contested the Government's interpretation of the obligations inherent under that Article, and the Opposition, while accepting that the Government were under an obligation to bring re-diffusion within the law of copyright and consequently that the head copyright owner was entitled to just remuneration, argued that the effect of their Amendment which we are considering in principle at the moment, was within the terms of Article 11 bis.
I realise, and I hope that hon. Members generally will do so, that any international convention, which is necessarily

drafted on fairly broad lines, is open to more than one interpretation. We have seen from the earlier reference which I made to the resolution passed by the International Federation of Authors' and Composers' Societies that there is strong support for the construction which the Government put on this matter at an earlier period. But even though my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central and the Opposition are right in their contention, and the Amendment moved in Committee and the Amendment which they now are asking the House to consider are within the Convention, their solution would lead, I submit, to certain anomalies and indeed to injustices.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: Will my hon. Friend permit me? I am trying to be helpful. He said just now "even though they are right". I thought that his argument really involved "even though they were right". I think it is of some importance that the right word should be there. I take it that he was not admitting that they are right.

Mr. Alport: My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) was a very patient and very respected lecturer of mine when I was an undergraduate at the university. He did his best to keep me right on constitutional law on those occasions, and I am very grateful to him for keeping me right on a matter of grammar on this occasion too.
Leaving out any question of drafting, as I have said that we do not want to make a point of that, the Amendment that we are considering leaves the author to get the best he can from the foreign broadcasting authority. If the foreign broadcasting authority refuses to pay any fee for the exercise of relay rights in this country, as it almost certainly will, the author would get nothing from it unless he could obtain an order for payment from the local equivalent of the Performing Right Tribunal, if such existed.
What would be the result if he obtained such an order? It is likely—I think it is generally admitted—that the other parties to the Convention will follow our lead in this matter. The result would clearly be that the P.R.S. would certainly be driven, as a result of corresponding foreign legislation, to seek to obtain from the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. a fee for the exercise by foreign relay organisations of relay rights in those foreign countries.


If they failed, the final result would be that the British author would either not get paid for his foreign relay rights or the British broadcasting authorities would be made to do so. To put it bluntly, the result of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would be either that the composer would go short or that the wrong body would pay.
Therefore, taking the Amendment at the legal valuation of the Opposition, and accepting for the sake of argument my hon. Friend's interpretation of the legal position, either a serious anomaly would be created or a serious injustice—that is certainly claimed by the composers—would be inflicted on the composers.
As has been said all through, this is not an easy point. I have done my best to elucidate the background to the Government's argument in this matter. We have tried all the way through not to take sides with one interest or another but to strike a just balance between what are sometimes—they have been at many points in the Bill—conflicting interests, interests between those who have what appear to be equally just claims. We have done so upon the principles which I set out earlier on in my speech. I hope that, on the basis of the arguments which the House has been so patient in allowing me to put forward, the House will feel, when the time comes, that it can look favourably upon the Amendment which the Government will move rather than upon the present Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James MacCoIl: The first point, the drafting point, which the hon. Gentleman made illustrated what some of us find so very irritating about the attitude of the Government in connection with this very complicated and difficult problem. After all, who introduced the words "authorised broadcast "? As far as I can gather from looking at the Order Paper, they came originally in the draft which the Government introduced into the Bill after it had been through Committee. As I understand it, the original meaning of "authorised broadcast" is connected with the rediffusion licence and refers primarily to wavelength and not to copyright. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) discussed that point with the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) when it arose.
The Government have now dragged the phrase into their own Amendment and given it their own interpretation, and yet they now turn round and blame us because their interpretation Amendment is too narrow. The sensible thing to do would have been to leave it out altogether, allowing the Bill to remain in its original form. One might think that we were the ones who were being difficult about it and introducing complications at the last moment, but we were content with the Bill as it emerged after careful consideration in the Standing Committee. It is the Government who are at the last moment, as the sands of the Session are running out, seeking to introduce entirely novel phraseology into the Bill and to give it entirely novel interpretations.

Mr. Alport: The objections which we are putting forward, which are drafting ones, to the present Amendment apply in exactly the same way to the Amendment which was passed in Committee and now stands as part of the Bill.

Mr. MacColl: As to the Standing Committee, it is a recognised fact that when the House expresses an opinion a Government who are discharging their responsibilities with reasonable courtesy to the House put at the disposal of the House the technical skill of their draftsmen in order to tidy up matters. The Government have been sitting on the Bill throughout the long Recess, and they have had plenty of time to tidy up the Bill and to deal with drafting points since it came from the Standing Committee. With a Bill of this character, no one could expect even my hon. and learned Friend, who is an exceedingly skilful draftsman, to produce something which will stand up to the criticisms of the Parliamentary draftsmen. However, that is a matter with which the Government can deal. I do not want to waste a lot of time splitting hairs and chopping logic about an interpretation. It is something upon which we can agree if we can agree upon policy.
We are faced with an exceedingly complicated and difficult question about which we all have different points of view. Vested interests on each side have been pushing and pulling. We have to work out something which will do rough justice as between the conflicting interest. Whatever may be the fault and whoever ought to be blamed for it, the Government


have been behaving like a lot of frightened old hens scuttling from one side of the road to the other. When the Bill was introduced originally, they said there was no problem and no need to worry and that rediffusion should not be subject to copyright charges at all. In that form, the Bill passed through another place. When it came to this House the Government shot right across to the other side and insisted on going as far as they could and putting the highest possible obligation they could upon the rediffusion authorities. Being faced with this difficult problem, we have to find a midway between the two points of view.
I do not for a moment accept everything that the rediffusion authorities have said. I think that, like many vested interests, they have tended to overstate their case. I do not accept the view that having rediffusion is merely like having another wireless set and that the rediffusion hearer is in no different position from the person who switches directly to the foreign station. I think that the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) about what happens in the shadow areas is an argument against that. If one can hear opera in Italy while sitting comfortably in one's armchair instead of lying flat on one's tummy with one's ear glued to the loudspeaker, that means that one is getting something different. I think rediflusion is a different operation and ought to be regarded as such.
Also, I do not attach very much importance to the emphasis which has been put upon the number and poverty-stricken character of the people who subscribe to rediffusion. At one stage I rather got the impression that all the widows who had been dispossessed of their shares in railway companies had invested their compensation in rediffusion. I think that kind of argument, put forward quite fairly and as part of the game, is something which one ought to approach with caution. At the same time, I do not accept the more passionate statements, well-written, as one would have expected, from great names in the musical and literary world, that if they do not screw the last halfpenny out of the foreign stations which happen to be picked up by rediffusion companies, every literary person in this country will

be bankrupt. That equally, I think, is an exaggeration.
What we have are two sets of people with reasonable points of view which they both tend to exaggerate, and we have to find some way of compromise which, while reasonably satisfying both, is not too much of a distortion of the law of copyright. That is the problem which we have all had to face. I think that it is greatly to the credit of my hon. Friends who have led us throughout these arduous discussions that they have succeeded with great statesmanship in producing a workable compromise and a tolerably fair one.
What they say, cutting out all the law, which I will leave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) who will, no doubt, be able to help us in expounding it, is that in lay language it means that so far as piracy is concerned, where an unscrupulous foreign station is not paying anything at all to the head copyright owners and is just not discharging its obligations at all, the rediffusion people have placed upon them the responsibility for seeing that the copyright charges are paid. That is a pretty onerous responsibility. It is not a thing to be looked at lightly. It places a substantial burden on them to make quite certain that the stations which they are picking up have, in general, done the decent thing by the copyright owners.
In other cases where they are satisfied that there has been an attempt to seek out a composer, or a poet, or whoever it may be, and make an agreement with him about broadcasting his work, the rediffusion authorities are exempt from responsibility and it is left to fair negotiation between the two parties concerned. I should have thought that was a fair way of doing it. In other words, provided that the rediffusion authority is satisfied that there has been a negotiation between the two parties, the station and the copyright owner, the precise terms of that negotiation is not their concern. That is something which they cannot really be expected to go into in detail, but they are responsible for seeing that there has been a negotiation of that kind and responsible for seeing that the foreign station has searched out the British copyright owner and has been prepared to talk to him. I should have thought that that was a proper concession and a very substantial one to the copyright owner.
Therefore, I ask why, at this late stage when a workmanlike solution has been evolved as a result of our discussions, the Government must pigheadedly disregard the views of all people on both sides of the House who have considered this matter, and say, "Our prestige is at stake. We got panicky in the Standing Committee. We took a certain line and were defeated. Therefore, to show that we are still masters of the nation we are determined, whatever the cost, to push this thing through, regardless of all reason, common sense and compromise."

Mr. Philip Bell: I share a great deal of the hon. Gentleman's views, but I cannot share his extravagance. The Government are worried about the meaning of the Brussels Convention. That is what is at the back of their minds, and why they are worried.

Mr. MacColl: I am happy that the hon. and learned Gentleman knows what is worrying the Government. I would not venture to make too many guesses as to what is worrying them. I thought that there might be quite a lot of things worrying them at the moment, but I did not think that the Brussels Convention was the major one. I do not think that there is much substance about the argument about the Brussels Convention. Quite frankly, I do not understand it, and am unable to make up my mind about it. I know that my right hon. Friends understand it, and all the other important skilled experts in this field understand it, but there is certainly sufficient dubiety about it to have made the Government in another place accept that there was no obligation under the Brussels Convention to do anything about it. There is sufficient room for doubt for us not to be too fussy and sticky about the letter of the law, and I should have thought that the British House of Commons would want to do what it always wants to do in a position of complexity and that is take the reasonable common-sense point of view and the reasonable fair, middle-of-the-road point of view. That, I should have thought, would have presented itself to everybody as always being entirely desirable.

Mr. Bishop: I am very glad to be able to agree with my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General on one thing. It was the point on which he

started his speech and I was hoping that, as he went along, he would develop it. I agree with him that it was unfortunate that the mover of this Amendment should have introduced an element of party feeling into it because in Standing Committee this matter was considered in an entirely non-party spirit. It was in that spirit that the Standing Committee reached its conclusion on this point.
I feel that I must say a word or two about some of the other points which have been made in the debate. My hon. Friend suggested in his speech that the Government had rightly adopted the course in this case of presenting a Bill to Parliament in something like a tentative form, leaving it to Parliament to shape the Bill as it should ultimately be. It seems to me that that is a course which might be followed in other cases, but I find it a little difficult to reconcile that principle with the fact that the Standing Committee exhaustively debated and examined one of the particular features of this Bill—the only one in which they disagreed with the Government's recommendation—and that the Government now state that they will not accept it.
I hope that the House will consider very carefully the points which are at issue. I do not want to enlarge upon the question of the extra cost to the rediffusion companies if the Amendment, in the form proposed by the Government, goes through. The figure of £50,000 was mentioned in Standing Committee and some justification for it was given, although everyone admitted that it was a highly speculative figure. It is not so much a question of whether, as I see it at any rate, this £50,000 will have to be passed on to the subscribers to the rediffusion services in the form of an increased subscription. Whether it is a farthing a week or any other figure I do not know, although I assume that it would be necessary, sooner or later, to pass on any increased charge of that kind.
From a wider point of view, the serious thing is this. It is a question of another £50,000 which has to be paid by the rediffusion companies in this country instead of by the foreign broadcasting companies who are responsible for the performances and who, under the present law and the present practice, are paying the copyright fees on the works which they put into their programmes. My hon.


Friend finished his speech by drawing a picture of the injustice that would be done and the various consequences which would follow if the Amendment in the form proposed by the Opposition were to go through. We must surely point out that it is the Government who are proposing to alter the law, and that the law as it stands and the practice as it operates at present have gone on for a very large number of years with no complaint from anybody.
At least there has been no complaint from any responsible source, because in his last letter in The Times the General Manager of the Performing Right Society said :
Our members would be quite happy if the provisions of the existing law were left unchanged.
If that is the view of the Performing Right Society, I cannot understand all this fuss on behalf of its members.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Alport: The hon. Member has referred to the letter from the Performing Right Society about this matter. I think that I should draw his attention and that of the House to the next paragraph in that letter in which the writer refers to a mis-statement which he claims was made in the Committee stage. He said :
' The second mis-statement is that authors and composers are paid by a broadcasting authority in respect of listeners, whether by relay or ordinary receivers, and whether in the country of origin or elsewhere. In nearly every country broadcasting authorities pay the authors' societies on the basis of the number of listeners (whether by relay or ordinary receivers) in the country in which the broadcasting authority operates, and only in that country.
I said that I thought that there had been a misunderstanding on this matter and the hon. Member will recollect that I referred to this point earlier in my speech.

Mr. Bishop: That brings me to my next point, the attitude of the Performing Right Society on the question of who pays the copyright fees and in what form they are paid. I was astonished to hear the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) read a letter from the manager of the Performing Right Society in which I understood him to say that the foreign station pays everything in respect of listeners abroad.

My hon. Friend referred to the difficulty of the head copyright owner in respect of relays from foreign stations which have no liability to pay for relays in this country.
I am compelled once again to refer to what was said on this matter in Committee. It is very important. In Committee I read out a considerable passage from a letter written on 22nd March, 1950, to the Malta Rediffusion Company of which I must declare myself to be a director. It dealt with the question of the liability of fees in respect of copyright on behalf of the head copyright owner. The letter explained that the B.B.C. in this country paid copyright fees based upon the number of licences, so much per head per subscriber, whether the subscribers were subscribers to rediffusion services or used listening sets. The letter went on to refer to the position of overseas broadcasting stations and said :
All overseas broadcasting stations in our territory are now assessed on the tariff of which we have given you particulars and most of the new licences are either completed or in course of negotiation.
That was in 1950. It went on :
Broadcasting organisations in other countries are charged by their respective national Performing Right Societies for what they transmit. The charge takes account of the fact that to some extent the transmissions may be picked up by listeners in other countries, even though primarily intended for home listeners. Thus, to take a concrete example, the Dutch Society charges the Dutch broadcasting organisation for its transmissions, taking due account of the fact that some listeners in England or elsewhere may occasionally tune in to them ; conversely, we charge the B.B.C. for the Corporation's transmissions and likewise take due account of the fact that some listeners in Holland or elsewhere may tune in to them. But this is not very material, for a listener who tunes in to the foreign station cannot at the same time listen to his national service, and this kind of cross-listening therefore cancels itself out.
That was the statement made by the Performing Right Society of the principles on which it operated in 1950 and the basis on which it said it had already signed agreements with other countries relevant for the purpose of this discussion, or was then in negotiation with them. Presumably by now the negotiations have been completed.
The position surely is that the head copyright owner under the present system gets his fee through his performing right society and gets a fee based upon the number of listeners in each of


the countries concerned. Whether the B.B.C. may be paying too much, because there are more people in this country listening to France than there are in France listening to the B.B.C, or vice versa, is a matter which the Performing Right Society says is irrelevant. The Society takes a sort of knock-for-knock basis and assumes that it works out on balance.
So the head copyright owner at present gets his fee in respect of programmes listened to in this country from foreign broadcasting stations and that is equally true whether they are listened to on a receiving set or through a subscription to a rediffusion service, which, as has been said over and over again in these discussions, is simply an alternative method of reception.
The trouble is that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding due to the very natural sympathy that we all feel for the man who through his own brain produces the work which is broadcast. I have been bombarded, as most other hon. Members have been, on this subject. Yesterday I received a long letter from an old school friend of mine of whom I had not heard for more than twenty years. He is now living in the country writing lyrics and composing music. What he said about the attitude which I have taken in debates on this subject is something which hon. Members would not be allowed to say to me here. He sent me a copy of a printed circular which no doubt other hon. Members have received in great profusion.
When I received it I wondered whether my friend had read it as carefully as I read it when I first received one. If so, he would have seen that on page 2 the Performing Right Society puts forward two alternatives for what it calls the achievement of common justice. The first of its two alternatives is that we should revert to the status quo under the Copyright Act, 1911, by removing all references to rediffusion services from the Bill. It is too late to do that. The damage was done in Clause 2 which was inserted in Standing Committee and which the House had no opportunity of discussing yesterday. We are now dealing with a series of Amendments designed to minimise the consequences of bringing rediffusion within the scope of copyright in Clause 2.
My hon. Friends in charge of the Bill have gone a very long way to help us to diminish the consequences that might otherwise follow from what I think is that mistaken course. They have gone 80 per cent. of the way. I wish they could have gone the full 100 per cent., because I think that would have been a right and a sound thing to do. I apologise for detaining the House so long. But this is a very complicated and important matter. I should regret very much if it had to be dealt with purely on a party basis, because I think it goes much deeper than that. The point is one which will settle the issue on this aspect of copyright perhaps for half a century to come.

Mr. Randall: Despite the discussion in which we have engaged, I am left unconvinced that the Government have a case for altering the present law. As so many hon. Members have said, this is a technical and a difficult Bill. Equally, this particular subject is difficult, but I thought that during the Committee stage discussions we were attempting to consider the interests of all who are involved ; not only the owners of the copyright, not only the Performing Right Society, not only the relay services, but also the listeners. As a result of those discussions I thought that we got at any rate somewhere near an arrangement which would prove satisfactory.
I have no quarrel at all with the bringing of rediffusion into the scope of copyright. I think it right and proper that that should be so. But as hon. Members who sat on the Standing Committee will know, our objection and my objection is to the conditions under which that will apply. That is the whole trouble. But I think hon. Members will agree that, first, whatever are the conditions which we shall apply, they should be simple to operate. I think I can secure the agreement of the House about that. The conditions should be fair and equitable. We should be just—I have already said so—to the copyright owners, but without differentiation in our treatment of the listeners and subscribers. They also must be considered. I do not think that that aspect has been sufficiently ventilated today. The Government's Amendment does not attempt to deal with the discrimination against the subscriber, and because of that, I am prepared to support the Amendment of my hon. Friends and to oppose the Government.
I agree with my hon. Friends that re-diffusion is not a second performance. The Assistant Postmaster-General referred to this during the Committee discussion, and it is of vital importance to the matter which we are now considering. The rediffusion relay of a broadcast is the first performance and that is most important. My approach to this matter starts from there. We are not dealing with something which is being performed for the second time. It is the first performance of a work—of music or whatever it may be.
I next ask myself, what is the service given by the relay people to the people of this country ; what do they seek to do? They provide, so far as possible, a programme for householders and give a service which is not dissimilar to the service which the owner of an ordinary wireless set would have. There are limitations. The owner of an ordinary wireless set can tune in to home stations and also to foreign stations without extra charge, provided that he has a receiving licence. The service which the relay services are giving represents an effort to provide, in certain parts of the country which are "shadow" areas, an opportunity to listen in the same way as the owner of an ordinary wireless set. Therefore, the service given is very necessary to the people of this country. For a large number of people it is a "must," and it is the only way in which they may get effective reception.
5.45 p.m.
If there is no doubt about that, my next approach and the next question I ask myself is, do the relay users have receiving licences? Of course they do, in the same way as the owner of an ordinary wireless set. They must have such a licence. The licence makes it clear that the owner is entitled to listen in, not only to home stations, but to foreign stations. What he is not allowed to do is to operate a station of his own and to broadcast. It seems to me, therefore, that the user of a relay service who holds a wireless licence is entitled to listen in, and that relay services are providing a service which they ought to provide for those areas in this country where it is difficult to listen in.
What of the copyright owners? When a programme goes on the air it can be

picked up at home or abroad even though the programme is intended only for listeners at home. It is perfectly true that the number of home listeners can be calculated, because the number of licences is known. What is not known is the number of listeners abroad.
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) has repeated today what he told us in the Committee ; that the Performing Right Societies in several countries in the world, when negotiating contracts with broadcasting corporations in other countries, must, without doubt, take into account that there will be foreign listeners. That seems to me absolutely inevitable because the very nature of a wireless programme prevents it from being confined to home consumption. Therefore the organisations safeguarding the rights and interests of copyright owners in their negotiations with broadcasting authorities will take into account the fact that the listening public extends far beyond the borders of the home country.
Despite the correspondence which has been read this afternoon, I am persuaded that in the majority of countries which accept the Copyright Convention consideration is given to the fact that there are listeners abroad. So I come to the point about the payment of royalties. Who pays the royalties? They are paid by the licence holders, at least in Great Britain, if not in other countries. The relay users are equally paying their licence fees. They are not exempt and, if that is so, they are making their contribution to the royalties due to the copyright holders, in whatever country they live or in whatever country their works are used.
Why does the Government Amendment discriminate against relay subscribers? Relay is not a second performance, and there appears no justification for amending the law. I know of no request or agitation to change the law. Because of the very nature of wireless it is not possible for the Government's Amendment to be applied with satisfaction to the relay users. I do not want to emphasise the political differences in the House but to preserve our unity on this matter. I hope that we shall tell the Government that this Amendment is not in the interests of the relay users and that they ought not to discriminate against them. The


Amendment in the name of my hon. Friends is to be preferred to that of the Government.

Sir Frank Medlicott: I am glad to have an opportunity to make a brief contribution to this discussion, but I must make it clear that I have an interest, since I have been associated with the relay industry in a legal capacity for more than a quarter of a century. That perhaps qualifies me to speak with some knowledge of the matter.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall) when he says that the bringing of relay into the field of copyright is justified. A great mistake has been made and a great amount of unnecessary confusion has been caused by this. I have found for a number of years that there is widespread misconception as to the nature of relay wireless. The hon. Member emphasised that relay is not a second performance. It was once said that because of the echo the Royal Albert Hall was the only place where a British composer could count on hearing his work performed a second time. That does not apply in any sense to the relay industry. Relay is a first performance and in no sense a transmission. I speak as a lawyer when I say that the original basis of liability for copyright was related to the active sending out or reproduction of literary or musical matter. That is in no sense a function of the relay companies.
It might be of historical interest to recall the origin of relay, which is believed to have started in the home of a Dutchman whose wife was ill and unable to listen to the wireless downstairs. The husband therefore provided an extension for a loudspeaker upstairs so that they could both listen. Neighbours later also wanted to listen in through his receiver. That was the origin of relay wireless. It is simply a method by which a very much larger number of people can listen to the programmes through the same receiver.
It has been made plain throughout the history of rediffusion and relay that the companies are not to have any power to transmit. That has been laid down most firmly and categorically by the Post Office. The relay industry would no doubt have welcomed the opportunity of activating

programmes, but it has been a condition of their existence that they must not activate any programme whatever, but merely organise reception.
It has previously been quite simple to enforce copyright by going to the fountain head, and the Performing Right Society has demonstrated its ability to do so in no uncertain way, in order to collect what was due.
I would take up another point made the hon. Member for Gateshead, West, that those who receive relayed programmes are all holders of wireless licences. We have been told that some people manage to escape holding a licence. May I point out that the relay companies are responsible for seeing that every person who listens to the relayed programmes has a current wireless licence before getting any entertainment. In that way, and also because relay carries wireless programmes to areas which would not otherwise be reached, the authors and composers themselves get the advantage of increased revenue.
We have heard a number of arguments on behalf of the Government in support of the Amendment. I was disturbed by that which suggested that the imposition can be justified because relay companies are wealthy. If that argument had come from the Opposition side it would have sounded more consistent, but I was sorry to hear the Assistant Postmaster-General say it. I hope there are stronger arguments than that for placing the proposed imposition upon these companies. They may be substantial and they are well run, but that is no reason for imposing a penalty upon them.
Do not let us bring confusion into the law relating to copyright. I hope, even at this late hour, that the Government will think again.

Dr. Horace King: The final remarks of the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) almost tempt me to turn aside to examine the financial position of radio relay and radio rediffusion. If I did it might not be germane to the matter that we are discussing. That is a political problem which we have to tackle between us in other ways and at other times.
Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee on the Bill did a good job of work and showed such keenness, and


their loyalty during the Report stage has been so evident that I feel that I am almost infringing their copyright in taking part in the debate.
Heavy weather has been made of the political quips which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) introduced into his excellent speech at the beginning of the debate. We all know that if this matter goes to a Division the resources of the Government will be used to persuade their Members-We do not want a Division, because we want to carry on the sweet reasonableness which prevailed upstairs, as I gather from a close study of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. We therefore urge the Government to accept an Amendment and not to put any of their supporters into the difficult position of going into a Lobby into which they do not wish to go.

An Hon. Member: They often do that.

Dr. H. King: It is beyond my compass to deal with the highly technical points in the speech of the Assistant Postmaster-General. I leave the questions arising out of Article 11 bis in the Brussels Convention, which haunts the pages of the Committee Report and has cast its shadow on our discussions tonight, and even the fascinating question of what the Brussels Agreement meant by "radiodiffusion", to my right hon. and learned Friends. I will take up one point made by the Assistant Postmaster-General, and which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made in the debate yesterday.
I am alarmed at the new argument that we cannot make an Amendment to a Bill at the Report stage if its drafting is not satisfactory—not even when the Amendment which we seek to introduce is designed to protect the Bill as it came from Committee. When my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was referring to this argument in his speech the Assistant Postmaster-General intervened and said, to my astonishment, "We also object to the drafting of the Clause even as it left the Committee, even if there had not been this new Amendment." With all the resources of the Parliamentary draftsmen, draftsmen who have achieved a miracle of definition in this Bill by redefining on Report what is meant by "cinematograph film", I think that there

was a moral duty on the Government, if the Committee had come to some decision and its drafting was wrong, to come to the House on Report and say, "What we are proposing is not to alter the principle which the Committee accepted, but to put the drafting right." The Government have failed in their duty by not bringing a redrafting of what the Committee accepted in principle, but what the Government found to be technically wrong.
6.0 p.m.
I want to call attention to what I think is the inconsistent attitude of the Government over this matter of broadcasting copyright. In Clause 14 the Government have given a new extra copyright to two broadcasting companies, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. And that extra copyright, is, I fear, for the benefit of the companies, and not for the authors and performers who create the broadcast. By altering the Clause as it came from Committee and by resisting this Amendment they seek to impose a new charge on radio-diffusion or radio relay, a new and extra charge, not for the benefit of foreign broadcasting companies, but for the benefit of creative artists. In Clause 14 all the benefits are for a broadcasting company and we tried in vain in Committee to get protection for the artists who provide the broadcasts. In this they are seeking to provide benefit, not for a foreign broadcasting company, but an extra benefit for authors and composers.
I would emphasise the word "extra". I understand—it has been referred to again and again in these debates—that one of the sheet anchors of principle held by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee was that there should not be double rewards. Foreign companies have no broadcast copyright so this new charge on radiodiffusion cannot benefit a broadcasting company abroad. Now, if there is piracy or an unscrupulous use by some broadcasting company of the creative work of artists, and if the relay company is taking the programme from a source which it knows to be a pirate source, it is compounding a felony. My legal term may be wrong, but it is certainly committing piracy and ought to be punished by having to pay, as I think the whole House would agree. We believe that our Amendment makes that distinction perfectly clear.

The Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall distinguishes between the bona fide foreign broadcast—what he called the authorised broadcast, and if that was not the right term it should be within the wit of the Parliamentary draftsmen of the Government in another place to achieve the right term—and the piratical one. If we assume that the radiodiffusion company is normally using the services of a reputable foreign station then one can assume that already performing rights have been arranged by the broadcasters.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop), whose very lucid arguments in Committee convinced me of the Tightness of this case and who, tonight, has referred to what he said in Committee, requoted the correspondence which, I gathered from his description, took place between a radiodiffusion or relay company in which he is interested and the Performing Right Society.

I do not want to re-read the whole of the letter which I did propose to reread into the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I would again bring to the notice of the House just this sentence :
broadcasting organisations in other countries are charged by their respective national Performing Right Societies for what they transmit, and the charge takes account of the fact that to some extent transmissions may be picked up by listeners in other countries.

It is for this reason that I say if this Amendment is not accepted authors and composers in some cases will be paid twice for the same broadcast. There may be foreign broadcasting companies who do not pay. I know that the hon. Member, again quoting from the letter he had received from the Performing Right Society, said :
All overseas broadcasting stations in our territory are now assessed on the tariff of which we have given you particulars…

It may be that the Performing Right Society—the hon. Member can intervene and correct me if I am wrong—was only making reference to a group of broadcasters inside its own territory.

Mr. Bishop: The specific case, the hon. Member will remember, was quoted as an example and is the case of Holland. I cannot give a list of the countries. I do not know what "in our territory" means, but I take it to mean within those countries where national Performing Right Societies are, in fact, operating.

Dr. King: That is what I suspected, that there may be some area in the world in which authors and composers through Performing Right Societies, or in some other way, are entirely unprotected.

Mr. Bishop: Such countries are unlikely to be among those whose programmes are relayed in this country.

Dr. King: I would agree and I would imagine that the radio diffusion company—for whom I hold no special brief, as I hope to show in a moment—would use its judgment and sense in choosing only reputable foreign broadcasts to relay to British people.
The individual pays no licence fee to Radio Luxembourg or Radio Milan. No one outside the totalitarian States—which, I am happy to see, seem to be shrinking in number at the moment—thinks it is wrong to pick up a foreign broadcast. Indeed, the motto over the. headquarters of the B.B.C. is, I understand, "Nation Shall Speak Unto Nation." It must be to the regret of all who love culture, all who love radio, all who love music, all who love international communication, that today we are not allowing nation to speak unto nation by radio.
I think that the Government's proposals will impose financial checks and will discourage radiodiffusion companies from bringing from abroad to British people something which was the supreme virtue of radio—its international quality. If we do not charge the ordinary British citizen for twiddling the knobs on his set and picking up programmes from Radio Milan, Radio Rome, or Radio Luxembourg I do not see why we should charge the listener to radiodiffusion. And it will be the listener who pays. Most hon. Members do not need convincing that when this House, by law, imposes a charge on private enterprise the shareholders of private enterprise take good care to see that the charge is passed on to the consumer.
I have said in previous debates, in defence of what I thought were the rights of radiodiffusion, that I am not a radio-diffusion user. I have no interest to declare in this, not even a literal interest in radiodiffusion. I like to get my own radio entertainment. I can see, however, that to those who like myself are high fidelity enthusiasts—I apologise for using the jargon of radio—but cannot


afford the very considerable expense needed to get high fidelity reception with all the possibilities of good, modern radio, people who cannot afford the equipment or who are without the technical know-how to look after the equipment, radio-diffusion within certain limits provides that high quality reception, it gives a certain choice of programme and that is something we ought not to discourage.
There are people too poor to get all that modern radio can provide without the aid of radiodiffusion. As has been pointed out in an intervention in this debate by an hon. Member from Wales, there are people in this country who, deprived of radiodiffusion services, would be deprived of radio altogether.
Until the Postmaster-General can solve the problem of the really bad reception areas in England then, for some of those people, radiodiffusion is the only source of radio. I think that to impose an extra charge on someone because he has radiodiffusion apparatus instead of the ordinary wireless set is an injustice. Everybody who uses an ordinary set, everybody who uses a radiodiffusion set pays a licence. No one would accept the claim of a man who had paid his year's licence if he said, "I listened to Radio Luxembourg all the time ; I want a reduction in my licence-fee for part of the English programmes to which I did not listen."
It seems to me that we would be wrong to impose an extra charge. The Committee thought so also, and amended the Bill accordingly. I hope that the Government are to get back to where the Committee was, and will have third or even fourth thoughts on this Measure, and, roughly, leave it as it was in Committee with, of course, any necessary drafting improvements. I believe that this part of the case was stated by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), when he said :
If we can stop the man who issues the programme from stealing people's copyright, there is no problem at all. That is the fountainhead to get at, and it has always been so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 26th July. 1956, c. 519.]
I think that the Performing Right Society, the British Government, the Postmaster-General—all who believe in international radio—have to seek to

build up a standard of morality of international radio, but they should not take a little section of the British public which chooses one technical method of receiving radio programmes and inflict on it the sins of the international radio community. As I have said, I hope that the Government will have third or fourth thoughts on this and that they will accept our Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: As both my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) and for Norfolk Central (Sir F. Medlicott) have declared an interest, and lest it might be thought that it is only because of that interest that some opposition to the Government comes from this side, I want to declare at once that, like the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King), I have no interest whatever in rediffusion or relay. I have, however, a large number of constituents who are rediffusion subscribers and I am very much concerned with the effect upon them of the Government's Amendment.
I find great sympathy with the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Itchen and the theme which was developed by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross). Why should there be discrimination in this case between the rediffusion subscriber and other set holders? I have looked in vain at the two principles put forward by my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General as being at the back of his mind throughout, to see whether they gave any reason for this discrimination.
It will be remembered that the first principle is that the head copyright owner should receive his just remuneration, and the second, that in no case should he be entitled to be paid twice for his copyright. With regard to the first principle, this Government Amendment recognises that there shall be no further fee paid when the B.B.C. or I.T.A. are broadcasting and there is rediffusion of that matter, but does the B.B.C. really take into account rediffusion in foreign countries? It has been suggested by correspondence which has been read that, to a certain extent, it may do so, but can it really be the fact?
I should have thought the fees paid by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. were based far more on the eminence of the author or


composer than on the assumed audience. I am sure that if I went to the B.B.C. with a sheet of music that I had written, that Corporation would not pay me as much for it as they would some very well-known composer. I cannot think that this is really taken into account and that there is a careful summing up of how many rediffusion subscribers there are in France, Holland, Germany and all over the Continent. Can we really balance it in that way?
The second principle enunciated by my hon. Friend was that in no case should the head copyright owner be entitled to be paid twice for his copyright. It seems to me that under the Government proposal he is very likely to be paid twice. If his matter is being broadcast from a foreign broadcasting station he has given authority to that broadcasting station, and he is being paid. But that broadcasting station wall say, "We shall not pay you anything for the rediffusion of this in your country, because it is not allowed. You get it in another way. You go to your rediffusion stations in your own country."
He then comes to the rediffusion companies in this country and says : "If you want to relay my matter you must pay me for it." They say, "No, we shall not pay you if the foreign broadcasting stations pay you." The rediffusion companies here then go to the foreign broadcasting stations and say, "Let us look at your accounts. What have you paid the author or composer for this?" What are the foreign broadcasting stations likely to say to the rediffusion company? They will say, "We shall not tell you what we paid the composer—and why should we? You find out for yourselves." There will, therefore, be a playing off by the Performing Right Society of the rediffusion companies in this country and the foreign broadcasting stations, one against the other.

Dr. Stross: Would it be fair to say that the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the author will be paid from two sources, but not necessarily more? He will be paid twice, but the sum total will be less than it would have been originally?

Mr. Page: I think that is so. But the effect will be that the rediffusion company in this country will be paying something which the foreign broadcasting

station is paying now—if it is paying at all—and will obviously pass that on to its customers, the rediffusion subscribers.
I cannot understand the argument of, "Oh, this is only a small sum"—£50,000 or whatever it may be. The fact remains that the Performing Right Society and the authors and composers are making a lot of fuss about it. They seem to think that there is something of good value in this, yet they use the argument, "It is not a large sum. Either the rediffusion companies are capable of paying it, because they are big and wealthy, or they will pass it on to their subscribers at a farthing a time." But why should the rediffusion subscriber have to pay any more than does the man who owns a set or he who hires one? That is where I think this point of non-discrimination is very important.
There are, I suppose, three categories of listeners to wireless and viewers of television. There is the man who owns his set, there is the man who hires his set, and there is the rediffusion subscriber. I suppose that I should add a fourth category—the man who listens to or looks at someone else's wireless or television set.
So far as the three categories are concerned, why should there be any discrimination between a man who hires a set and the man who, being a rediffusion subscriber, hires the wires which run from a communal set and hires the right to listen in to that communal set? Each one of those people pays a licence fee to the Postmaster-General ; each one is charged for listening, and there is no discrimination when it comes to taking the money from them.
By this Government Amendment we are saying to the rediffusion subscriber, "Your neighbour who hires his set can tune into a foreign broadcast but you must not do so unless you pay a little more to the rediffusion company." That seems most unfair. In fact, the Government have recognised that this discrimination is unfair by doing away with it in the case of broadcasts from the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. It is thus recognised that discrimination is wrong.
Indeed, I do not think I am misinterpreting what was said in Committee when this was put forward as a fair and proper arrangement when the B.B.C. and


the I.T.A. are broadcasting and their material is rediffused. The Government attitude appeared then to be, "We wish we could do the same thing about the foreign broadcasts. We think it is right not to discriminate, but the Berne Convention prevents us from doing what we think right." Article 11 of the Berne Convention does not prevent the Government from making a similar provision for foreign broadcasting stations to that which they desire to make in the case of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.
I do not want to go through those arguments because they have to be taken step by step, and it takes rather a long time to deploy them, but I ask hon. Members to believe that there is no objection in the Convention to our dealing with the foreign broadcasting stations in the same way as it is desired to deal with the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. Even if there were, the countries who are parties to this Convention are meeting again in July, and surely the Government could take up this point then ; they could respect what was agreed to in the Standing Committee and, if they felt that there was some doubt about the Convention, they could take up the matter with the other parties. The other parties will not have passed any legislation by then, and the matter could be put right there and then.
Therefore, it is with great regret that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General because he has been so kind to me in connection with other matters which I raised in Committee. He has been most generous and I am grateful to him, but on this point I cannot accept this Amendment.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: I quite agree with the final observation of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) when he referred to the kindness of the Assistant Postmaster-General. He is a most amiable person and is always ready to help. I believe that this afternoon when he endeavoured to explain this matter he did what he thought was just, but it is quite clear that in the result he is not in fact doing what is just. He did not deal in his speech with the salient point, because he obviously saw that he was in a difficulty.
I do not think there could be much objection to the manner in which the

hon. Gentleman dealt with most of the aspects of this matter, but he left out one vital thing. He failed to deal with the qestion of the discrimination between two sets of listeners in circmstances where it is absolutely incomprehensible why such discrimination should occur, I am very much concerned about this because in Gloucester there is a very large body of subscribers to the wireless relay service.
Indeed, I think I am entitled to say that the City of Gloucester was the first place in any county to which this service came and that we were able to beat America in the introduction of it by exactly one week. Many of these Gloucester subscribers in the city and county are in places where it would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to receive a programme at all except by means of this special relay apparatus, either because of the distance from the transmitter or because of electrical and other interference. In passing, I am sure that many people are profoundly grateful to the City and Corporation of Gloucester for having initiated this service, which has become such a widespread boon.
What is the fundamental issue which has to be considered here? If this were a question of someone trying to take advantage of the work or industry of another person, that would be another matter. If there were a class of people getting something for nothing which others were paying for it would be quite right that this Amendment should be promptly accepted. There is in this connection one noteworthy point, namely, that the present situation has been going on for many years—

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: For thirty years.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: —Yes, for thirty years, I am told.
It has never once been suggested that there was anything wrong about it, or that there was an injustice to rectify. Indeed, in the original Measure, in another place, there was no such provision as is contained in this Government Amendment. It was only at a later stage that the matter was mentioned at all in quite an indeterminate form. It was, apparently, suggested that there might be some difficulty associated with the Berne, or as it is often called, the Brussels Convention. But all that happened in the


other place was that the Lord Chancellor very properly said that he thought this was a matter which should be looked into and that if it were found necessary to do something the Government, as would be their duty, could take the proper steps.
I do not want to go into the technicalities of the matter, but the fact is that the Brussels Convention does not really apply to this matter at all. Indeed, if the language of the particular article of the Brussels Convention which is relevant to the matter is studied, it will be seen that the Convention expressly does not refer to relay rediffusion at all.
In any event, even in relation to that to which it does refer, namely, a wireless diffusion of another kind, it is not conclusive, because it still leaves it for the particular Parliament in any particular country, if it wants to, to determine and legislate upon it. It is, therefore, really quite wrong, that there should ever have been any doubt about whether there was a contravention of the Brussels Convention, because its provisions do not even begin to introduce any doubt on this issue at all. When the relevant Article is looked at carefully, in all its language, it is seen that, on the contrary, the provision it makes is perfectly clear and safe so far as any interest of an author may be concerned.
6.30 p.m.
I now want to put this very important consideration to the Assistant Postmaster-General, because, as I say, I know he wants to be very careful about the matter and that he wants to do what is right. He has raised the question of protection under the provisions of Clauses 27 and 28 because, as he says, quite rightly, thereby one is enabled to go to the Tribunal for protection about matters of this kind. But I wish to point out to the Assistant Postmaster-General—and I ask him and his advisers to look at the matter again very carefully—that his Amendment will have this serious effect : it will not be controlled by Clauses 27 or 28 at all, but it will have the important effect of enabling the Performing Right Society to draft a new form of licence excluding specifically the picking up of any programme by relay services at all.
The mere talk about foreign stations only does not approach anywhere near the essence of this matter. The effect will

be—and I say this advisedly, after having given it the most careful thought and brought some degree of technical knowledge to bear upon it, as I think the Assistant Postmaster-General would at least agree—that not only will a burden be put upon the relay service companies and their subscribers as regards merely the foreign stations, but the Performing Right Society will, as I have said, be enabled to construct an entirely fresh type of licence whereby the relay services will be excluded from picking up any stations whatsoever unless some fee or copyright royalty is imposed specially in respect of it.
This is therefore, a very serious matter. There are about 10 million broadcast licence holders in this country. One million of them are subscribers to relay wireless services, in circumstances such as those to which I have already adverted, which make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to get any or any worthwhile reception otherwise. These subscribers to the relay services would by the effect of the Government's Amendment be put under a great disadvantage. Such a result would be neither proper nor right, and I am quite certain that neither the Post Office nor the Board of Trade would desire it.
Of course, it has been said—even by one of my hon. Friends, with whom I profoundly disagree on this—that the people who are less well off will not be affected. In my submission, they definitely will be affected. There are many people all over the country who find themselves unable to afford the type of expensive set which would be necessary to pick up the stations from abroad, or even in this country, which they are now enabled to receive through these relay wireless services. Why they should be deprived of that facility, or discriminated against, for the life of me I do not know.
This is the gravamen of this matter, and I wish to bring it home forcibly to the Assistant Postmaster-General, as his hon. Friends on the other side have done. What we are complaining about, and the important thing we are complaining about, is this incomprehensible, illogical discrimination which his Amendment imposes between two sets of people. If a person having a set is in his home getting private reception of music, or whatever the performance may be, this Amendment


will not affect him. On the other hand, if he happens to be sitting in his home and reception comes to him through the relay wireless services, then he will be prejudicially affected. It is very difficult to understand what justness, sense or logic there can possibly be in that.
It must be understood by the Government that the relay wireless service is not an original service at all ; it is an alternative form of reception. That is all it is. What it amounts to is this : instead of the holder of the licence receiving his programme through the medium of his radio or television set, he receives it through the alternative medium—nothing else—receiving it simultaneously as he does through the medium of the relay services. In those circumstances, it seems very difficult to understand why relay service subscribers should be penalised over and above ordinary licence holders, who, in fact, hold the same broadcast licences as do subscribers to relay wireless.
I do not wish to delay the House any further, because that one point, more than anything else, is what urgently matters here. If that one point is right, then the Government ought to withdraw this Amendment. If it is wrong, then no one would support their policy on this question more than I. If it be right for one person under ordinary broadcasting to receive a programme without the burden of the Amendment applying, them it surely cannot possibly be sense, and it cannot possibly be right, for another person receiving the identical programme simultaneously, only in a slightly different way, namely, by an alternative form of receiving, to have to suffer the discriminating burden the Government Amendment imposes. I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General, therefore, to look at this matter further.

Mr. Philip Bell: At this late stage I do not wish to detain the House, and I shall not go over the ground which has been covered so admirably already. I really rose only to recapture my quotation from my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary which I thought I had used, indeed I must have used, very effectively in Committee, because he would not have used it in the House if it had not been a success.
That was the phrase, "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change". Hon. Members will remember that that saying was deployed very effectively yesterday when dealing with the question of compulsory licence on records, which had gone on since the last Copyright Act, and, therefore, unless one could think of some really good and overwhelming reason, one should leave it alone.
The result of all our long debates in Committee and here is that still I am not convinced that there is really any reason why we should alter the law in such a drastic way as is proposed. There is no good reason for thinking that authors are not now getting a fair deal. It is doubtful how much will be involved either by leaving it as it is or altering it.
There is, however, one argument which is always difficult to deal with, the rearguard argument of the Ministry that, "We do not like this very much anyway. We have minimised the damage"—as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow. Central (Mr. Bishop) said—" we have minimised the damage with Clause 25 and made it as pleasant as we can ; but we are, of course, bound by this Brussels, or Berne, Convention—whichever it is—which hangs round our neck and forces us to do it." Those are positive reasons, but, of course, the argument has never, in fact, been deployed through the whole of this debate. Perhaps it is rather late to do it now but it was deployed most effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central in Committee, when he pointed out—and no convincing argument was made against him—that the translation which is given of communications publique is rather misconceived in the form that it turns out in the English article as being then something corresponding to public communication, and that the idea that this meant radio-diffusion was challenged seriously a great deal, although not on party lines.
I wonder what my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would do if he were convinced that we were not bound by this procedure. I hope that he would not press on with it and would say that even a small, insignificant, unimportant group of his colleagues might carry a little weight with him, including a person, like myself, who has no material interest in the success of this matter. My


hon. and learned Friend might think that on balance, in view of the decision in Committee, we should minimise the effect of Clause 2, as it is sought to be minimised by the Opposition Amendment.
Apart from that, if it be true that the signatories to the Convention are meeting next year, it would be much easier for us to hold the ground and, if it becomes necessary that we must go further, give a right against British rediffusion companies by means of a small Bill. I am certain that nobody on this side, nor on the other side of the House, would object if we had to do it in our international conventions.
We must, however, take the matter step by step. Let us give only as much as we must give under the Convention. If there are any complaints we must put them right but we would be jumping the gun if we said that we must do this now because of 11 bis. Therefore, for the 11 bis I would not operate. So far as the merits of the proposition are concerned, I remind my hon. and learned Friend of that quotation with which by now he must be so familiar :
Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I understand that the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) wishes to defer his observations until after I have spoken, so perhaps I might reply now to the matters which have been raised in debate. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) should think that I have plagiarised his remarks. I thought I had made it clear that the copyright in the remark, if still existing, rests with the late Lord Falkland. The only difference between our respective uses of it was that I acknowledged the source.
My hon. and learned Friend referred to Article 11 bis. That has loomed, I am glad to say—I imagine that most hon. Members feel the same—a good deal less large in our discussion today than in our protracted discussions upstairs. One thing which nobody who is interested in this problem can say is that Parliament has been in any way grudging of the time it has accorded to it, both today and in Committee. Why Article 11 bis has, fortunately, loomed less large today, and why the debate has been simplified, is because, as my hon. and learned
Friend said, we are willing to make the assumption, for the purposes of this debate only, that Article 11 bis does not preclude the exemption from copyright protection of relays in the United Kingdom of programmes from abroad broadcast under licence of the copyright owner.
We made that assumption so that the House could discuss this matter on its merits. I am bound to say to my hon. and learned Friend and to the House that after much anxious consideration, after a great deal of entirely objective study of the varying and conflicting viewpoints in this difficult and complex matter, we have come to the conclusion that the course which we are recommending to the House is right on the merits of the case as such.
6.45 p.m.
There has been no lack of information or exhortation to hon. Members from the partisans in this matter. A kind of battle of the circulars has been going on between the contending interests and there has been war, if not to the knife, at any rate to the tuning fork. So far as we in this House are concerned, we want to try to stand a little aside from the representations and conflict of these interested parties and to try to view the matter as objectively as we can.
There are certain simple basic propositions on which, I think, we would all be agreed and which form the background against which we must try to find the solution. We should all be agreed that the composer or author is entitled to copyright protection for his creative work and that that protection is effective only if he is paid an appropriate fee for the performance or dissemination of his own work. I think it follows from that that he is entitled to a reasonable fee or royalty for his work and that such fee or royalty should have regard to the total number of listeners which his work has.
I think we would also all be agreed that the composer or author is not entitled to a double fee in respect of the same listening public to the same performance of his work but that he is, however, entitled to a reasonable single fee, based on the listening public, without demarcation of national frontiers, because copyright is in its essence an international system based on the principle of reciprocity. I do not believe that any fair minded or reasonable


person—all hon. Members are both those things—would dissent from any of those propositions.

Dr. King: Surely, if we take it in that simple form, every author or composer is entitled, for any of his work which is broadcast by any station in the world, to assume that the whole of the world are potential listeners.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No. I think that the evidence of the facts would be against the hon. Member on that. We must look at the practicality of it and see at whom the programme is beamed and what is its likely potential coverage.
I am glad that the hon. Member at least did not rise to dissent from any of those propositions. I apprehended that there would not be any dissent from them because all yesterday we listened to very high-flown pronouncements from hon. Members opposite as to their concern for the well-being and just remuneration of the author and composer. It would make a mockery of those protestations if they did not accept these propositions now.
As for my hon. Friends, I am confident that they would accept all those propositions, not only because of their genuine interest in culture, but because of their proper regard for the legitimate protection of private property, especially when it is the creation of a man's own effort and artistic skill. If this be so, our problem really reduces itself to finding a solution which satisfies these basic propositions, and our right and inevitable course must be to reject any solution, whatever its other attractions may be or may appear to be, if it is in conflict with one or more of those basic propositions. In my submission, the Opposition's proposed solution fails to satisfy the basic proposition that a composer or author is entitled to a proper fee or royalty which takes appropriate account of the full extent of his listening audience.
We take the case of a composer who licences a broadcast of his work by a non-advertising foreign broadcasting station ; that is, the normal sort of foreign broadcasting station which is primarily concerned to direct its programmes to its own domestic public, like Radio Paris or the German example which my hon. Friend gave in Committee upstairs. In those cases, the composer would normally

get no return at all in respect of the rediffusion of his programme in the United Kingdom from foreign broadcasting stations, and this is because the foreign broadcasting authority is concerned with its own domestic public and would not expect to pay the composer for the relay audience in the United Kingdom. Why indeed, should it? It is not particularly concerned with that part of the matter at all.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his opening speech, sought to deal with this point by saying that it should be possible for the Performing Right Society to negotiate a comprehensive agreement, which would do what is not now normally done and give effect to the relay audience, but, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out, the composer would be in a weak position in seeking to make that sort of condition an indispensable condition to the broadcast of his work. Why should the composer imperil his chance of having his work broadcast by having to insist on the inclusion of relay audiences in another country, as part of a sort of package deal? It is putting a quite unfair burden upon the composer to suggest that that is a possible proper or practical solution to this problem.

Dr. King: Why does the hon. and learned Gentleman say "relay audiences"? Surely, in Britain, apart from the areas in which the relay brings, as we have said, an added service, all the people with wireless sets are the potential audience? Why pick out relay audiences in the argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman is now putting to us?

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman's point is that some people by cross-listening, can hear broadcasts from other countries which are not primarily intended for them, that is so, and to the extent that these people listen, the composer is deprived of his fees or royalties. [Interruption.] Certainly, he is, in respect of that part of the listening public, and it really is a novel proposition that the best way of consoling somebody for not getting his just fees in one respect is to see that he forfeits them in another at the same time.
I want to refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Bishop) said. It appears that there is some conflict of evidence about the method of payment by foreign broadcasting stations, although that really arises


from a confusion between the method of payment in regard to this haphazard cross-listening, as it is called, and the organised rediffusion of broadcasts in other countries.
As I understand the position, part of the difficulty between the hon. Gentleman and the Performing Right Society is that they have had these two different types of transaction in mind. I fully admit that there may be some diversity in practice regarding these payments, and it is precisely for that reason that we have written into this Bill Clause 28, to provide a proper and just solution for the various methods of payment or non-payment that may operate in the case of these foreign broadcasting authorities.
If it be right that this is as I have suggested it to be, two results would seem to emerge. First, that a composer would rarely receive any fees at all for the performance to relay audiences in the United Kingdom, and, secondly, that the relay companies would never have to pay the composers anything for using the fruits of their labours. With the most careful study that I have been able to make of this matter, I cannot see that either of these propositions is one that ought to commend itself to hon. Members.
After all, as my hon. Friend said, why should not the relay companies pay something to the composer? They relay the composer's work to make money. They could not operate if it were not for the fruits of his labours. This is not a social service ; it is a commercial proposition, and there is no clear reason that I can see why they should not expect to have to pay a fair fee to the composer.
At the same time, we have been careful to safeguard the relay companies against the possibility of having to pay the composer what is, in effect, a second fee for the same work. There is a safeguard in Clause 40, which we are now debating. We have provided that there should be no relay fee for works broadcast by the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Independent Television Authority, and that is because the Performing Right Society levies its fees for these broadcasts based on the total audience, including both broadcast and relay.
We have provided a similar safeguard in respect of foreign broadcasts in Clause 28 (1, b). Where these fees paid by foreign broadcasting authorities include relay audiences, then there will be no right on the part of the composer to receive fees from the relay companies. That seems to me to be a fair approach and entirely in accord with the basic propositions to which the House has assented.
There is one other aspect of this and it is the economic aspect. Hon. Members have expressed apprehension, both here and during the Committee stage, that this would result in a raising of the charges made to the subscribers, and if that were a necessary consequence of this, it is, of course, one that should weigh heavily with this House. Although this matter has been going on for many months, I am bound to tell the House that we have not heard or been placed in possession of any accurate evidence or estimate of the amount involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central very fairly agreed in his speech that the estimate of £50,000 was a highly speculative figure, although he admitted that he did not know the figure. If we take £50,000 as the maximum, and I think we are probably entitled to do that, that would be one farthing a week if it is necessary to pass it on at all, but, here again, we do not need to make the assumption that it has to be passed on to the subscriber. There is no evidence on this matter, and, on the whole of the economic aspect, my experience in my own profession teaches me that if there is a strong case, it is very clearly and closely particularised at an early stage.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Government have not taken the responsibility of making an inquiry into the economics of the radiodiffusion industry. It is not for us to do that If there is a case to be made, we have at all times been willing to consider any evidence and statistics in support of it, but, in default of that, I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman can charge the Government with the duty of instituting a roving commission into the economic workings of a particular industry.

Mr. W. Wells: The hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking by his Amendment to increase the expenses of running an


industry. Surely, if he is doing that, he would be willing to take the responsibility for seeing what extra charge the consumer has to pay.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think that there is any necessity to make the assumption that there will be an extra charge to the consumer. What we are here concerned with is to get a just and equitable solution which will take account of the basic rights of the composer and author, which is, I understand, acceded to by hon. Members opposite.
7.0 p.m.
I say, in conclusion, that there is this conflict, and a bitter conflict it would appear, between two interests involved, the Performing Right Society on behalf of composers and authors, and the relay companies. Our duty is to stand above and apart from that conflict and to seek to get a just and equitable solution which will take into account the duty that we owe to the public to make our copyright law as good as we can. That we have tried to do.
We have tried to strike a fair balance, after very full and careful consideration of this matter. I do not say that that solution is perfect, but I am convinced that it is as good a solution as can be found to this difficult, complex and intractable problem. On that basis I do with confidence commend our solution to the House.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I deferred my own remarks until after the Parliamentary Secretary had spoken because I had hoped that he would have announced a concession which I, in my usual spirit of co-operation, would have been only too willing to have accepted. I am disappointed that that has not happened, but I doubt if my disappointment is anything compared to the disappointment the hon. Gentleman must feel at the fact that not a single speech has been made, in a debate of more than three hours, in support of the proposition the Government are advancing.
I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friends are hoping to rely on the support of those less well informed of their colleagues who have not been here for the discussion but who will, no doubt, coming trooping in when the Division bells start to ring

However, as there are already some hon. Members here who have not had the benefit of listening to the whole debate I will touch on some of what seem to be the main points that we should take into account.
Throughout the discussion on the relay services there has been a good deal of confusion on both sides of the House. I make no complaint of that. I think it is very natural, for this is a highly technical problem, and I think all of us at times have found it difficult to know what the right decision is. Moreover, the Bill. as it appeared before us on Second Reading, made no provision at all for altering the law about the relay services.
I have no doubt that the Government were influenced, in not proposing any change at that time, by two considerations. First, there was the consideration to which some hon. Members have referred, that there is a good deal of doubt about the translation of the Brussels Convention itself. There are many specialists who hold that the word radiodiffusion in the French version should not have been translated "radiodiffusion", but was intended to mean ordinary broadcasting. If that is the case then, of course, it is extremely relevant to the problem we are discussing.
In addition to that, I am sure the Government were influenced by the fact that the previous Government had set up the Gregory Committee on the law of copyright in order to consider what changes were necessary in the light of technical developments and in the light of the Brussels Convention.
Sir Edwin Herbert appeared before the Copyright Committee to put the point of view of the relay services, and he was rigorously questioned by the members of the Committee. Members of the Committee were not themselves coming new to this problem for they included, for instance. Mr. Skone James, who is, perhaps, the leading authority on copyright law in this country, and who is the editor of the leading work, Copinger on Copyright.. Mr. Skone James questioned Sir Edwin Herbert for a considerable period, and it appears from the Report of the proceedings of the Committee that Sir Edwin Herbert was able to convince. Mr. Skone James and the other members of the Copyright Committee that the relay services, which is an organisation for


profit, did not come legally within the scope of radiodiffusion as used in the Brussels Convention.
Certainly, when the Committee presented its Report, as hon. Members have reminded the House, they dismissed this subject in just one sentence :
We do not suggest any alteration in the present relationship between the Postmaster-General, the B.B.C. and the Relay Companies.
There is no qualification whatsoever in that. There is no saving clause. There is no condition which applies to it. It is an absolute rejection of any suggestion that the law ought to be changed to bring it into line with the Brussels Convention.
We were not unnaturally a little perplexed that the Government should not have found it necessary and the Copyright Committee should not have found it necessary to introduce this change, in view of what appeared to us at that time to be the very clear implications of the Brussels Convention.
We were also a little puzzled by the fact that although, in another place, 300 Amendments to this Bill were discussed it was only at one of the very latest stages that the Lord Chancellor gave an undertaking that the Government would consider their attitude to the relay services. In spite of that, on Second Reading the Parliamentary Secretary made no reference to the relay services, in presenting this Bill to the House.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman must have been listening with less than his usual attention when his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) read that passage earlier today.

Mr. Greenwood: I am sorry if my memory is at fault on that. My impression was that the Government at that time when presenting the Bill, and in the opening speech on that occasion, which I thought was made by the Parliamentary Secretary, did not say they intended in Committee to amend the Bill in the way they ultimately attempted to do.
In Committee we tabled a purely probing Amendment in order that it should be possible to discuss the position of the relay services in relation to the law of copyright, and to our surprise, and, I think, to the consternation of a million

subscribers to relay services, the Government tabled an Amendment the effect of which would have been to have made all relays of programmes other than those put out by the B.B.C. and I.T.A. liable for copyright.
We were faced, therefore, with two alternatives. We could have done what we have tried to do, leave the law as it stands by objecting to the inclusion of the provisions in Clause 2. I still think, with the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell), that that would have been the proper course for the Government to have adopted in view of the recommendations of the Copyright Committee.
It is interesting to note that on 22nd October. Mr. Walter, General Manager of the Performing Right Society, wrote a letter to The Times in which he said :
Our members would be Quite happy if the provisions of the existing law were left unchanged.
That proposition would have been quite acceptable to the Relay Services Association, who immediately made an approach to the Performing Right Society suggesting that the two bodies should make a joint approach to the Board of Trade asking the Board to leave the law as it stood before those Amendments were introduced.
I should have thought that, if it was acceptable to the Performing Right Society and also acceptable to the Relay Services Association, probably, on balance, it was right to leave the law as it stands. It would have been protecting the rights of the composers and would have been protecting the position of the public as well.
However, the Government went ahead with their Amendment, and, therefore, at a later stage we amended the Bill, or sought to amend the Bill, in a way which freed the relay companies in respect of broadcasts from stations which accepted their copyright liability ; but we imposed upon the relay companies liability if they relayed pirate stations which did not accept their obligations under the law of copyright. That was the Amendment which we put to the Standing Committee, and it was accepted by the Standing Committee by a majority of Members, to which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee contributed.
The Parliamentary secretary said, earlier, that we should view this matter objectively. I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that in the Standing Committee we did not put on the Whips on issues of this kind. We allowed hon. Members complete freedom of choice whether they voted for the Amendments which we were putting forward, or not. I think that any hon. Member who was on that Committee will agree that all of us tried to view this matter objectively, and I think it was significant that in the light of those discussions a majority of Members of the Committee, in spite of the Government Whips, nevertheless rejected the advice which the Parliamentary Secretary tendered to us.
Today, we have put forward this further suggestion in the hope that it will avoid some of the damage which the Government are proposing to do. If our Amendment is accepted, it will really mean that the copyright owner must negotiate an agreement providing for a fee which shall be deemed to include remuneration in respect of relays in this country. If a relay company diffuses a programme from a station which refuses to do so, the relay company will be liable in copyright.

Mr. Philip Bell: What is the difference between the hon. Gentleman's Amendment and the one we had in Committee? Why did not the hon. Gentleman leave the Committee one?

Mr. Greenwood: That one would have been much preferable, but, in effect, there is no difference. It was because we saw that the Government were going back on the decision of the Standing Committee that we felt it necessary to table our new Amendment in the hope of undoing some of the harm which the Parliamentary Secretary was hoping to do by the imposition of the party Whips. As the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) implies, the effect is very much the same as with the earlier Amendment.

I do not think it is fair to say that the Amendment will in any way impair the rights of the composer or author. It will not be difficult for a relay company in this country to find out from the Performing Right Society whether a station overseas is playing the game with British composers and authors. It has only to telephone Mr. Walter at Langham 3864 and I am sure that the information will readily be made available. On the other hand, if Mr. Walter feels that the relay companies are in danger of relaying work upon which copyright royalties have not been paid, I have no doubt that he will be perfectly free to approach the Relay Services Association and warn it against relaying programmes from a certain station.

I am sorry—I am very serious about this—that the Government have not left the position as it was before the Bill was introduced, which would have been acceptable to all the interested parties, and that they have decided not to take the advice of the Copyright Committee and the advice of the Standing Committee, which met for 13 days to consider the subject. I am sorry that, in spite of doing that, the Government have decided to put forward their Amendment, which will undo some of the good which we did in Standing Committee.

All along, we have tried to approach the problem upon a non-party basis. We have tried to be as objective as we can. All of us on the Standing Committee thought that we had made the Bill a great deal better than when it first came before us. I hope that even at this late stage the Parliamentary Secretary, remembering that not a single speech has been made tonight in his support, will agree with us and accept our Amendment.

Question put. That the words proposed to be left out, to the second "or" in line 35, stand part of the Bill :-

The House divided : Ayes 184. Noes 146.

Division No. 289.]
AYES
[7.14 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Balniel, Lord
Biggs-Davison, J. A.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Barber, Anthony
Body, R. F.


Alport, C. J. M.
Barter, John
Boyle, Sir Edward


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Bryan, P.


Arbuthnot, John
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.


Armstrong, C. W,
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.


Atkins, H. E.
Bennett. Dr. Reginald
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Waiden)


Baldwin, A. E.
Bidgood, J. C.
Cary, Sir Robert




Channon, H.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pott, H. P.


Cole, Norman
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J
Powell, J. Enoch


Conant, Mal. Sir Roger
Hughes-Young, M, H. C.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hurd, A. R.
Raikes, Sir Victor


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hutohlson, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Rawlinson, Peter


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hyde, Montgomery
Redmayne, M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Renton, D. L. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Dance, J. C. G.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rippon, A. G. F.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Deedes, W. F.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Joynson-Hicks. Hon. Sir Lancelot
Roper, Sir Harold


Doughty, C. J. A.
Keegan, D.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Drayson, G. B.
Kerr, H. W.
Russell, R. S.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kimball, M.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lagden, G. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R


Duncan, Capt. J. A, L.
Langford-Holt, J, A.
Sharples, R. C,


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Leather, E. H. C.
Shepherd, William


Errington, Sir Eric
Leavey, J. A.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Erroll, F. J.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fell, A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fisher, Nigel
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Freeth, D. K.
Lloyd, Mai. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gammans, Sir David
Lucas, Sir Jooelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Summers, Sir Spencer


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)
Teeling, W.


Glover, D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Maodonald, Sir Peter
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Cough, C. F. H.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Gower, H, R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Graham, Sir Fergus
MoLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Maomillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Gresham Cooke, R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maddan, Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Gurden, Harold
Marples, A. E.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Maude, Angus
Vosper, D. F.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Milllgan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wall, Major Patrick


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nairn D. L. S.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E, R. G.
Neave, Airey
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hesketh, R. F.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith &amp; Border)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hill, Mrs. E (Wythenshawe)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)




Woollam, John Victor


Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)



Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Hornby, R. P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Mr. E. Wakefield and Colonel H. J. Harrison




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Baird, J.
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Forman, J. C.
Hunter, A. E.


Benson, G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Beswick, F.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Irving, S. (Dartford)


Blackburn, F.
Gibson, C. W.
Janner, B.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gordon Walker, Ht. Hon. P. C.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pancras, S. V.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Greenwood, Anthony
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Boyd, T. C.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Grey, C. F.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Chapman, W. D.
Hale, Leslie
King, Dr. H. M.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hamilton, W. W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Clunie, J.
Hannan, W,
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hastings, S.
Lewis, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hayman, F. H.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Healey, Denis
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
MacColl, J. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Herbison, Miss M.
McInnes, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Holman, P.
McLeavy, Frank


Delargy, H. J.
Houghton, Douglas
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Dodds, N. N.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mahon, Simon


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hubbard, T. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean







Mason, Roy
Randall, H. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Mellish, R. J.
Rankin, John
Thornton, E.


Messer, Sir F.
Redhead, E. C.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mikardo, Ian
Reeves, J.
Viant, S. P.


Mitchison, G. R.
Reid, William
Warbey, W. N.


Monslow, W.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Weitzman, D.


Moody, A. S.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Moyle, A.
Ross, William
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mulley, F. W.
Royle, C.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Oliver, G. H.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilkins, W. A.


Oram, A. E.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Orbach, M.
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Oswald, T.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Owen, W. J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Steele, T.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Parker, J.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Peart, T. F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Pentland, N.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)



Plummer, Sir Leslie
Summershill, Rt. Hon. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES :


Proctor, W. T.
Swingler, S. T.
Mr. Holmes an, Mr. Deer.


Pryde, D. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Amendments made : In page 52, line 35, leave out from "Authority" to end of lines 14 on page 53 and insert :
and the broadcast is an authorised broadcast, any person who, by the reception of the broadcast, causes a programme to be transmitted to subscribers to a diffusion service, being a programme comprising a literary, dramatic or musical work, or an adaptation of such a work, or an artistic work, or a cinematograph film, shall be in the like position, in any proceedings for infringement of the copyright (if any) in the work or film, as if he had been the holder of a licence granted by the owner of that copyright to include the work, adaptation or film in any programme caused to be transmitted by him to subscribers to that service by the reception of the broadcast".

In page 53, line 19, leave out from "was" to end of line 20 and insert :
not an authorised broadcast".

In line 23, leave out from "copyright" to "but" in line 24.

In line 30, leave out subsection (5) and insert :
(5) For the purposes of this section, a broadcast shall be taken, in relation to a work or cinematograph film, to be an authorised broadcast if, but only if, it is made by, or with the licence of, the owner of the copyright in the work or film.—[Mr. Alport.]

Clause 47.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS AS TO ORDERS IN COUNCIL, REGULATIONS, RULES AND ORDERS, AND AS TO BOARD OF TRADE.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 60, line 12, to leave out from "any" to end of line 15, and to nsert :
rules made by the Lord Chancellor under the Fourth Schedule to this Act".
This Amendment requires the Lord Chancellor's rules under the Fourth Schedule to be laid before Parliament.

and makes them subject to the negative Resolution procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 48.—(INTERPRETATION.)

Sir Thomas Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 61, line 26, to leave out "or".
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it might be for the convenience of the House to take this and the next Amendment, in line 26, at the end to insert : "or programme" together.
These two Amendments do not in any way go into the difficulties of the application of copyright law, about which I am an amateur. They deal purely with the question of definition. The Amendments are designed simply to make clear that a written programme is included in a definition of literary work, so that such programmes are entitled to protection under the copyright law. If both Amendments were carried, the definition would then read,
' literary work' includes any written table, compilation or programme.
What I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us, when he replies, is either that he will accept the two Amendments in order to make the position abundantly clear or that the position at present is clearer without the Amendments.
I understand that there have been many decisions of the court on the subject of compilations, and that the point is not as clear as it might be. If the House has the opportunity, which it has today in passing this Bill through Parliament, of making the position clearer, I


hope that it will take it and that litigation in the future on this point may be avoided.
The new definition would apply to a very wide variety of programmes ; for instance, it would include garden fêtes, horticultural shows, a large number of sporting events, perhaps the most important of which in application to the definition is the programme of race meetings and athletic meetings, and it could even extend to the boat race. There is one thing common to all, which I think that the House will appreciate. All these programmes have a very important common factor, namely, that a great deal of thought and trouble goes into the compilation of them, and I think that the House will agree that those who are responsible for the preparation of the programmes deserve to be protected against pirates and other persons who, for their own personal use, wish to produce them in whole or in part. It is to clarify this point and for no other reason that I move the first Amendment, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it or explain that the position is already covered by the law.

Commander R. Scott-Miller: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me desirable that programmes should be included in the definition of a literary work. We know how difficult copyright proceedings can become, and it would be a pity if someone who had gone to great expense in producing a programme should find that it was "pirated", as my right hon. Friend said, and that benefit was accruing to people who had had no trouble or expense in the matter.
My right hon. Friend mentioned racing. That is an extremely good example, because the promoters of race meetings go to great expense in providing the information which is contained on a race programme. They employ men as handicappers to work out the various weights on which the public forms its opinion about the result of the race. That is a factor which creates great interest in that form of sport.
7.30 p.m.
I do not see why people who wish to pirate and simply copy the programme without having had any expense in the matter should be allowed to do so. My

right hon. Friend said that it had not always been established that the compilation was included within the scope of the copyright protection in the courts. I believe that to be true of cases in the courts right up to the House of Lords. The Amendment would make it clear that a programme is the subject of copyright, because it is a literary work. If my hon. and learned Friend can accept this Amendment, it will clear up any future doubts on the matter.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Commander Scott-Miller) for putting forward this Amendment so clearly and so helpfully. I have, naturally, considerable sympathy with what they have in mind, but I do not think that the Amendment will actually improve the situation as we have it now. The wording which we have, "table or compilation" is in fact taken from the Copyright Act, 1911, and a compilation means quite simply something which is compiled. There can be no doubt that a programme in fact comes within the definition of compilation.
That being so, there is, of course, no necessity to spell that out in the definition. What my right hon. Friend and my hon. and gallant Friend may have in mind about the difficulty which may arise in this context is that if one claims copyright for a programme, it is not enough to establish that it is a literary work. That is all with which this definition is concerned. One has to establish, in accordance with Clause 2 (1), that it is an original literary work, and the test of originality is whether sufficient knowledge, labour, judgment, literary skill, taste or so on has been bestowed in the compilation.
It will be clear that one cannot list in a Statute those documents which are to have copyright protection as having originality, because the test of originality is a test of fact, each on its own particular facts in each particular case. It would not advance the matter to accept the Amendment, because the point which my right hon. Friend made about whether it is a literary work is already catered for in the definition as it stands.
It is, of course, a principle of drafting not to put unnecessary words into a


definition, because of the confusion to which they may give rise. In this context there might be confusion, because "programme", as my right hon. Friend will see from Clause 49 (3), is there used in a quite different sense. The best thing is to leave the Bill as it is. "Programme" will come within the definition of compilation, and the test of originality must always be one of fact, if necessary, for the courts.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has made the position absolutely clear, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO INTERPRETATION.)

Amendments made : In page 64, line 45, leave out from "thirty-nine" to second "this" in line 1 on page 65.

In page 65, line 28, at end insert :
and in determining, for the purposes of paragraph (c) of this subsection, whether reproductions of a work or edition have been issued to the public, the preceding subsection shall not apply".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

First Schedule.—(FALSE REGISTRATION OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS.)

In page 68, line 35, at end insert :
and' corresponding design' has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (6) of section ten of this Act".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Sixth Schedule.—(AMENDMENT OF DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL PERFORMERS' PROTECTION ACT, 1925.)

Dr. Stress: I beg to move, in page 74, line 14, after "made", to insert "and used".
There was some discussion about this in Committee when the Parliamentary Secretary explained what he had in mind and what was the meaning of this Schedule. It is apparent that we are here referring to the Dramatic and Musical Performers' Protection Act, 1925, and also to Clause 43 of this Bill. The Act of 1925 made clandestine recording an offence and Clause 43 added broadcasting. The point made by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee was that in the 1925 Act consent in writing had to be obtained either from all the performers or by a person who as manager or otherwise made arrangements for performances on behalf of performers.
He went on to say :
Turning to the proposed new Section 3A, it is provided that the making of a record, film or broadcast of a performance is not an offence if it is made for the purpose of reporting current events or is incidental to the main purpose of the record, film or broadcast. The Committee will appreciate that that is obviously a necessary requirement in this time and age, for example to protect the B.B.C. in its television broadcasts of outside spectacles. It is not called fair dealing but it is very similar to the fair dealing provisions in Clauses 6 and 9."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 31st July, 1956 ; c. 611.]
I should like to bring to the notice of the House that at present it is the 1925 Act and only that Act which gives protection to performers against secret or illicit recording and exploitation of their work. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has had discussions on this matter and is much better informed than I am, but I think that it is true that he suggested to representatives of the performers' unions that perhaps an appropriate clause in their contracts with the makers would safeguard them.
They are not certain about this. In fact, they do not agree. They put the point in this way and I voice it on their behalf almost in their own words. They ask, "Suppose that the recording is made, not by the employer, but by a third party?" To whom would they go for redress? If this is answered satisfactorily, they make another point. What will prevent a record made by an employer from passing to a third party? May it not then be used outside the terms of any contract that they may have made? That, I consider, a very strong point.
It is possible, surely—I put this to the Parliamentary Secretary—that a record may be made for test purposes only, and then be exploited by selling it for another and different purpose. A specific example again may be given in this way. Everyone knows that films are often made for the purpose of television and to be used only for television—at least, that may be the impression. These are sometimes sold to third parties and the third parties then will show them in cinemas, usually small cinemas.
One must ask oneself, to whom, then, will the performer turn for redress? The original employer may not be in business, or he may have no assets, or the business as such may no longer exist. The argument I now put is one which cannot be


controverted ; that the new owner will be a person against whom the performer can have no rights whatsoever.

The Amendment simply asks to insert the words "and used." That seems to me simple and helpful as an Amendment, because the making of a thing, of itself, does not mean anything at all. A thing may be made and never used. It is only the use of a thing when it is made in which we can have any interest, and which we, as legislators, must consider. If one looks at the drafting of this sentence as it stands, it reads as follows, in paragraph (a) :
that the record, cinematograph film or broadcast to which the proceedings relate was made only for the purpose of reporting current events.

If the two words are added, I submit that it would be most helpful to the performers and give them a great deal of protection. If the words are not added, I wish to suggest that the record, film or broadcast made, as it is said, only for the purpose of reporting current events, could subsequently be used for other purposes without the consent of the performer. That is what this Amendment tries to avoid by the insertion of these words.

I think it the considered view of Equity in particular that this would be a very helpful Amendment. It may be that I am bringing forward this Amendment very late in this stage of our discussions. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree, however, that this Clause came also very late, at the end of our discussions in the Committee, and I plead that my lateness finds in that other feature some extenuation. It may be, too, that there are difficulties ; that there are implications in these two words which I ask may be inserted that I have not fully understood myself.

It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary has reservations. But it is never too late to do something better than a backbencher can do, and even though there may not be much time, I hope that in his answer, the Parliamentary Secretary will see to it that I am served a little better than I have been throughout the Committee stage, when everything for which I pleaded fell, unfortunately, by the wayside.

Performers are rather concerned at the accusations which have been broadcast

about them : that they are "Luddites", not facing up to the modern world. The truth of it is that they are faced with serious problems as a result of the technological developments occurring all round us, and I think it a good and proper thing for us to consider very sympathetically the difficulties this presents to us.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I beg formally to second the Amendment.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If what the hon. Gentleman has said is right, that his Amendments did not produce much effect during the Committee stage discussions, I am sure that the House will appreciate it was not due to any lack of persuasiveness on his part ; and I hope that it was not due to obduracy on my part.
The hon. Gentleman has explained clearly and sympathetically why it is that he wants this Amendment made. In this Schedule we are concerned with the incorporation of new sections into the Dramatic and Musical Performers' Protection Act, 1925, and this subsection 3A incorporated in the Schedule and to which his Amendment relates is the one which provides a special defence to anybody who is charged with clandestine recording or broadcasting. That special defence is that it was made only for the purpose of recording current events.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that we are here on a narrow point, and I do not think that there are many ways in which the fears which it is true that Equity has had could be realised. I find some difficulty in seeing how a film made for the reporting of current events could be used outside the ambit of the special defence provision, except, perhaps, in the sort of scrapbook series that we occasionally get. But I think that the scope for confusion here is, fortunately. very small.
I am in a difficulty in accepting the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, because the whole structure of this provision is to make the test of whether or not there is an offence lie in the intention of the person at the time of the making ; and I cannot, therefore, incorporate the further test of use, because that comes at a later stage, and we cannot apply that retrospectively when the test is the intention at the time of making.
At this stage, I cannot either accept the Amendment or adapt it, because we have very nearly finished with this Bill, and the hon. Gentleman put down his Amendment only yesterday. I would say this for his comfort, additional to what I have said before, that I think some of the instances he has mentioned would be unlikely to pass the test of the intention at the time of making. Of course, where that is so the Clause as now drafted would be satisfactory to the point of view of Equity, and the fears which have been felt would not be realised.

Mr. Harold Lever: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would care to enlighten one of the ignorant. I gather that he is in the same spirit as my hon. Friend and hopes that the subsection will work in a manner which will not give specific justification for the words of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. Why not remove any fear by the simple expedient of inserting the words in the Amendment?
The intention is to protect people who make films only for the purpose of recording current events. What possible objection can the Minister have to ensuring that the alarms and fears—which he seems to think unjustified—of the people concerned should not have any material ground simply by removing the ambiguity of the Clause by inserting the innocuous, helpful and reasonable words suggested by my hon. Friend?
Is it the Minister's intention, in other words, that the exemption shall protect later use of this production and that the defendant may rely on the somewhat specious argument, difficult to disprove, that though the film is being used much later than the event concerned it was originally made with the intention of using it currently? If such specious arguments were used it would not be open to my hon. Friend's Amendment to exempt them because the exemption would simply exist to allow people to make films recording topical events and use them topically and the original protection intended by the subsection would not be left.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I sought to explain the reason. If the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), who is a barrister, will look at the framework

and the structure of the Act of 1925, and the new provisions incorporated into it by the Schedule, he will see that my difficulty is the test as to intention at the time of making. I cannot write in another test which is inconsistent with it.
What I said, and repeat, is that the subsequent use might well be material evidence as to the intention. If it was a long time after, then, of course, it might well be that there is a bonâ fide defence.

Mr. Lever: Why is this provision necessary?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have sought to show why it was necessary. To incorporate the words "and used" means that we might have a film originally made with a bonâ fide intention rendered retrospectively unlawful by subsequent user by a different party. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that that is not consistent with our normal legal approach to these things.
I ask the House to believe that this is a very thin point—I do not say it disrespectfully—which can only arise in a very limited class of case. As an example, I suggested the scrapbook case, where I cannot see much harm arising in practice to the acting profession.

Mr. W. Wells: This is a difficult little point. Its main importance arises in its being symptomatic of a great deal of disquiet in professional and trade union circles about the operation of the Sixth Schedule. The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with the argument in a reasonable way. I must admit that I am impressed by the argument he adduces as to the general test applied under the 1925 Act and the difficulty of introducing tests of use into the Bill as tests of intention. I rather doubt whether the words proposed by the Amendment would have just the effect desired, but I may be wrong about that.
In view of all the arguments that have been deployed, this appears to be a point which my hon. Friend would be well advised not to press. He has done great service in raising it and I wish that we could wholeheartedly support it. The difficulties to which the Parliamentary Secretary has drawn attention are real and it would not be right to press the matter further at this stage.

Dr. Stross: In view of the answer which has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ronald Russell: I beg to move, in page 74, line 26, to leave out from "he" to "and" in line 27, and to insert :
as manager or otherwise made the arrangements for the performance on behalf of the performers.
As the Schedule stands, it would appear that the manager of any living entertainment who wanted to arrange for a broadcast, film or record of the performance, would have to seek the content of every individual performer. That places an impossible burden on him, especially when he might have to make arrangements some way ahead and might not know the performers who would take part. That would be a ridiculous burden upon him.
Surely the best way of dealing with this matter would be for the manager to obtain from every performer he engages permission in a general way in the contract.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The sub-paragraph with which the Amendment is concerned is the other special defence to that with which we were concerned in the previous Amendment. I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) for putting his point so clearly and concisely. I realise the considerations he has in mind and I hope to be able to satisfy him that what we are doing here is the best and most practical approach.
The effect of the special defence in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) is to provide a defence for the making of a recording, and so on, by proving that the person acted with the consent in writing of a person who represented that he was authorised by the performers to give consent on their behalf, provided always that he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the person who gave that representation was not so authorised. We evolved that in the Committee as the best solution, having regard to the interests of the broadcasting authority, managers, impresarios and performers. The Amendment would replace in the

Bill the words which were in the first draft and were rejected by the Committee in favour of the present wording, after very careful consideration. Moreover, my hon. Friend's Amendment is defective in its drafting, which would make it more difficult of acceptance as we get nearer to the end of the proceedings on the Bill.
The main point is one of principle. I am sure the House will agree that there are two main principles. The first is that performers should not find that their performance goes on the air without their knowledge or consent, and the second is that the broadcasting authority should not, on pain of committing a criminal offence, have to get individual consent in writing from each and every member of a large chorus or orchestra. Those are the two principles and we have tried to evolve the highest common factor which satisfied those principles.
8.0 p.m.
I fear that the Amendment fails to implement the principle in regard to the interests of the performers. That is why we altered it in Standing Committee because, of course, the interests of the manager might in some cases conflict with those of the performers and the person arranging the broadcast performance might leave the performers he had engaged in ignorance of his consent. That is what we sought to avoid.
I would add for the comfort of my hon. Friend and theatre managers and the like who may have apprehensions about this, that I see no reason why it should be difficult for them in practice. It is true that in some cases they have to make agreements to broadcast a particular show before they have engaged the cast. In that case it is quite open to them to obtain the consent of the cast to the broadcast after they have engaged the performers. It is quite enough to be within this special defence if they tell the B.B.C. at any time before the show is actually broadcast that the performers' consent is authorised to be given.
In those circumstances, I think it will work out well in practice and it has met the principles we have considered important. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend—having very properly and clearly ventilated the matter—will not wish to persist further with the' Amendment.

Mr. Russell: In view of the explanation of my hon. and learned Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Seventh Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 77, line 36, to leave out from "made" to the end of line 46.
This is consequential on the Standing Committee's decision that the period of copyright in recordings should be fifty and not twenty-five years.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made : In page 81, line 3, leave out "made" and insert "taken".

In page 82, line 21. leave out from "including" to end of line 22, and insert :
those specified in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph".

In line 28, leave out from first "of" to end of line 29, and insert :
those specified in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph.

(3) The said acts are—

(a) performing the work or an adaptation thereof in public ;
(b) broadcasting the work or an adaptation thereof ;
(c) causing the work or an adaptation thereof to be transmitted to subscribers to a diffusion service".—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

Ninth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to move, in page 89, line 29, column 3, after "fifteen", to insert subsections (1), (2), (3), (4), (6) and (7).
The purpose of this Amendment is to correct the anomalous and unfair position in which the National Library of Wales alone of the great deposit libraries of the Kingdom is placed. Section 15 of the 1911 Act named the following libraries as having prescriptive right to copies of books : the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, Oxford, the University Library, Cambridge, the Library of the Faculty of Advocates, Edinburgh, the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, and the National Library of Wales. Subsection (5) of that Section, however, said :

The books of which copies are to be delivered to the National Library of Wales shall not include books of such classes as may be specified in regular editions to be made by the Board of Trade.
In fact the Board of Trade Regulations of 1912, following closely on the passage of that Act, imposed restrictions on the National Library of Wales alone of the six great deposit libraries. The library was debarred from claiming copies of
books published in editions of less than 300 ; books of a price exceeding £5 where the edition was 400 or less ; and books of a price exceeding £10 where the edition was 600 or less.
The monetary limit has been raised, but the discrimination still stands and is to be perpetuated in this Measure. The Regulations were further amended in 1924 to debar the Library from claiming copies of imported books if the edition was 100 or less. These Regulations were used in an increasingly deleterious fashion so far as this one national library was concerned.
We in Wales have always resented this discrimination against our Library, for discrimination it is. There is absolutely no valid reason whatsoever why this Library should be singled out for this kind of treatment. In every way and by every test the National Library of Wales is comparable in scope, purpose and service to any one of the other deposit libraries except the British Museum, which of course stands on its own. The Welsh Library is not simply a regional library. It is a very substantial centre of records and research enjoying considerable international renown. It is used by scholars from all over the world.
Its facilities and staff are of the highest standing—indeed there is a great deal of competition in other countries for the services of members of the staff. They are presided over by a scholar of very high distinction, Dr. Thomas Parry. Hon. Members on both sides of this House who have visited the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth will agree that both as to site and design its premises are truly magnificent. On the merits of the Library itself, therefore, there can be no justification at all for this discrimination.
These restrictions do not apply—quite rightly—to the Edinburgh Library, nor do they apply to the Library of Trinity College, Dublin. While none of us would


wish them to apply to the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, it is rather odd, to say the least, that the Dublin Library, which is situated in the completely independent Republic of Eire, is treated with full generosity, but the National Library of Wales, situated in the Principality, which is so far still part of the United Kingdom, is treated so meanly. One is tempted to ask whether it is necessary for us to declare ourselves an independent republic in order to secure for ourselves the facilities which so rightly have been granted to Eire.
What are the results of this discrimination on the Library itself? It is a fact that the Library is obliged to spend large sums on the purchase of books which the other deposit libraries have a right to receive gratis. I could give some examples, but possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) will do so. This burden is likely to increase as the years go on.
One aspect which I should like to press upon the Parliamentary Secretary relates to scientific research, particularly in the fields of agriculture and hydro-electricity. It will certainly be necessary for this Library, possibly more than any other library in Great Britain, to make quite sure that its records and files are complete. With these restrictions in effect in any form, that activity will be hampered ; and even if hampered only to a very small degree it still remains true that a major institute of research and learning will be hampered in completing the fullest possible services of which it is capable.
It is true that some of the publications on these subjects are, in fact, sent to the Library by the publishers as an act of grace. We are most grateful to those publishers for making up for the meanness of the Government, but that is not good enough. The principle still remains the same—that this national institution, which serves not only Wales but the whole of the United Kingdom, and indeed other parts of the world, in the field of research and scholarship is, alone among the six deposit libraries of the country, subjected to these restrictions.
We are asking for a very small concession, but a small concession which will sustain a great principle, and I hope that the Minister will grant it. There

can surely be no objection to placing the National Library of Wales on exactly the same basis as the other great deposit libraries of the country. If the Parliamentary Secretary grants this, he can take this Bill home with him in a blaze of glory reflected from the Welsh hills.

8.15 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I wish very briefly to support the case so very ably and lucidly put by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts). For a long time this matter, which may seem a very small thing, has rankled among Welsh scholars, and we feel that this is surely an occasion when the House could rectify an injustice.
I do not pretend that it was necessarily an injustice when the provision was first made, because the National Library of Wales is clearly not as old a foundation as some of the other deposit libraries. When the provision was made in 1911 it may then have appeared that this institution would not necessarily achieve its present status. I feel that we ought, in 1956, to recognise that the National Library of Wales has a standing in the world of scholarship and research as illustrious as that of the other deposit libraries.
As my hon. Friend has said, it seems a very peculiar anomaly that in this Bill we should perpetuate the privilege of Trinity College, Dublin, and refuse the same privilege to Wales. There is some dispute as to the precise position of Monmouth, but the President of the Board of Trade is at least a neighbour of ours, and we hope that he will take a friendly interest in this matter.
I would say that the Government make great play of their friendship for Wales when it costs nothing. We have the little tag on the end of the title of the Home Secretary, who is now also called Minister for Welsh Affairs. Tomorrow he is going to Cardiff to eat at a banquet, at the expense of the Lord Mayor there, in connection with the privilege of Cardiff being named the capital city. I believe that he is even going to dance at a ball at the city hall tomorrow evening. That is all admirable public relations, no doubt, but we are a little sceptical as to the real affection of the Government for Wales when it is confined to such social activities as those of the Home Secretary.
This is an occasion when a small thing could be done which would give immense satisfaction. I dislike suggesting to the Government that they should do something which could give great satisfaction to Wales, but I am afraid that my patriotism must come before my political interest. I would suggest that this is really something which, if they chose to do it, would give very great satisfaction to the Principality, because this is just one of those small, irritating discriminations for which, at the present time, there is no adequate reason. After all, we are being asked, in the Ninth Schedule to the Bill, to continue the deposit Section of the 1911 Act. All we are asking is that we should also repeal Section 15 (5). That is very easy, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will do it.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said that she was very sceptical of the Government's affection for Wales. I am even more sceptical of the affection of Wales for the Government, in view of their scant reputation in the Principality. As an Englishman I have some diffidence in speaking now in support of this Amendment. My only interest in the matter is that I am an admirer of my hon. Friends the Members for Flint, East and for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts), and I am also one who has a Welsh wife.
I am sure that the whole House will agree that my hon. Friends have made a most persuasive case. This concession for which they ask is a very modest one. It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East has said, just an irritaing discrimination, and I am sure that all of us would want to remove any discrimination which causes any irritation to our fellow-citizens in Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon has said that the publishers do send these books as an act of grace—

Mr. G. Roberts: Some of them.

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, some of them—but I think that it would be much more generous on our part if we were to bestow on the Library the accolade of Government privilege in this way.
I therefore hope that the President will be able to accept this Amendment, and

accept it as a first step towards a general revision of the whole law on libraries of deposit. I should be out of order if I went much further into that matter, but I think that the time is rapidly approaching when we shall need a new Bill dealing exclusively with libraries of deposit. I hope that such a Measure will appear in the next Session, not only because it will remove such irritating discriminations but will serve also to crowd out other more contentious and controversial legislation.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The National Library of Wales could not have hoped for two more eloquent or persuasive advocates of its cause than the hon. Members for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) and for Flint, East (Mrs. White). They referred to the discrimination against the National Library of Wales. I should like to make it absolutely clear that there is no question of discrimination against that Library being based on what might be called a current assessment. The sole reasons for the difference of treatment lie very far back in history, and as the hon. Members would appreciate, the Welsh, though
An old. and haughty Nation proud in Arms
as, I think, Milton called them, nevertheless did not achieve a National Library until some centuries later than the other countries involved. It is in these accidents of history, therefore, that these differences arise.
It is not for me to adjudicate as to whether or not Monmouth is in Wales and, therefore, whether or not my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is a Welsh Member of Parliament or not. However, if he is not one he is very nearly so, and I share with him a high regard and keen appreciation of the long traditions of Welsh culture.
When we look at the historical side of this matter, it is a fact that the library deposit arrangement started as far back as 1610 in an agreement made between Sir Thomas Bodley and the Stationers' Company. Indeed, the early days of libraries of deposit are not based upon a particularly respectable principle because they are part of the machinery of the licensing system of the Star Chamber and were operated as an instrument of censorship, so that in that sense it may


be complimentary to Wales that they were not in the field at that time.
There were then extensions to the Royal Library, then to the British Museum, the Cambridge University Library, the Advocates' Library, Edinburgh, and the Library at Trinity College, Dublin. The extensions took place very shortly after the respective Acts of Union at the beginning of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries between those countries.
It was not until 1909, centuries later, that the National Library of Wales came into the picture and by that time the privilege of deposit had become something of an ancient right. It was for that reason, that this matter was regarded in a different context and a different climate of opinion, that the differentiation was made in the case of the National Library of Wales.
Looking at the matter as it is today, one has to have regard to these important considerations relating to libraries of deposit, but one must also have some consideration for the interests of the publishers. Their position was put forward and is expressed in paragraph 57 of the Report of the Copyright Committee. The point is made that this is the only trade which is required by law to give away free specimens of its work. Indeed, six copies of an expensive and limited edition can be an onerous burden on a publisher and would make, one would imagine, a considerable difference to the profit margin on the books.
In those circumstances, the way we look at this matter is this. One can retain these ancient privileges and libraries of deposit which have gone along over the centuries, but it is more difficult to extend them. The hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) spoke of a fresh approach to the subject and fresh legislation. I am not at all sure that if we viewed this matter de novo we would not be more inclined to assimilate the position of the other libraries to the existing position of Wales rather than the other way round, so as to limit the liability of the publishers in this regard.
In these matters it is always so easy to be generous at somebody else's expense. This is what we are doing if we increase the burden on the publishers

in this matter. This is not really a copyright matter at all, except by accident, and it would be better, if it is to be reviewed, that it should be done in separate legislation.
It follows from what I have said that it is not possible for me to recommend the House to accept this Amendment, but we are anxious to give such practical help as we can, short of that, to the National Library of Wales. I might mention that the Treasury grant for the purchase of books for the National Library of Wales has been increased by 30 per cent. for 1956–57 as against the preceding year. With respect to the restrictions in the regulations to which reference has been made, it has been pointed out that under these regulations if the number of copies in an edition does not exceed 400 and the published price of each volume exceeds £5, there is a maximum of £5 for that edition and £10 if the edition does not exceed 600.
I fully appreciate that those maxima were fixed some years ago and that changes have taken place in the value of money, and so on. With those considerations in mind, we have been in consultation with the National Library of Wales and with the Publishers' Association on the question of those maxima, and I am glad to be able to say that as a result of those consultations we think it right that those maxima—the £5 and the £10 to which the hon. Gentleman referred—should in each case be doubled so as to make them £10 and £20, and we would propose to introduce regulations in the near future to give effect to that improvement in the position of the National Library of Wales.

Mr. G. Roberts: The concessions which the Parliamentary Secretary has announced, while acceptable and helpful, still do not touch the root of the matter, which is the principle of equal treatment of comparable institutions. Nothing that he has said tonight, although we all enjoyed his eloquent discursions into ancient history, has removed the fact that a discrimination is to be perpetuated in this Bill when a very small concession on the part of the Government could put it right and give untold satisfaction to the people of the Principality. I really must ask that this Amendment be pressed to a Division.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill :—

The House divided : Ayes 126, Noes 164.

Division No. 290.]
AYES
[8.27 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hubbard, T. F.
Proctor, W. T.


Baird, J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pryde, D. J.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Randall, H. E.


Benson, C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rankin, John


Beswick, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Reid, William


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Boyd, T. C,
Janner, B.
Ross, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Royle, C.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Chapman, W. D.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Clunie, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditoh &amp; Finsbury)
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Delargy, H. J.
McInnes, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Swingler, S. T.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, Frank
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thornton, E.


Fletcher, Eric
Mahon, Simon
Turner-Samuels, M.


Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Usborne, H. C.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
Viant, S. P.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Greenwood, Anthony
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, D.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Monslow, W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Moyle, A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hale, Leslie
Mulley, F. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Hamilton. W. W.
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Hannan, W.
Oram, A. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Orbach, M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Hastings, S.
Oswald, T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hayman, F. H.
Owen, W. J.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Healey, Denis
Pannen, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Parker, J.
Winterbottom, Richard


Herbison, Miss M.
Parkin, B. T.



Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES :


Houghton, Douglas
Pentland, N.
Mr. John Taylor an, Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Currie, G. B. H.
Hicks-Beach, Ma). W. W.


Alport, C. J. M.
Dance, J. C. G.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Arbuthnot, John
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Armstrong, C. W.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Atkins, H. E.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Drayson, G. B.
Hornby, R. P.


Barber, Anthony
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Barter, John
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hurd, A. R.


Beamish, Mal. Tufton
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Errington, Sir Eric
Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Freeth, D. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Bidgood, J. C.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Gammans, Sir David
Joseph, Sir Keith


Bishop, F. P.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Keegan, D.


Body, R. F.
Glover, D.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Kerr, H. W.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Gower, H. R.
Kimball, M.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lagden, G. W.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Leather, E. H. C.


Channon, H.
Green, A.
Leavey, J. A.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Cole, Norman
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Gurden, Harold
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Lucas, Sir Jooelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfd)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hesketh, R. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter




Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Powell, J. Enoch
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Redmayne, M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Maadan, Martin
Renton, D. L, M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Marples, A. E.
Rippon, A. G. F,
Vane, W. M. F.


Maude, Angus
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, w.)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Nairn, D. L. S.
Russell, R. S.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Neave, Airey
Schofield, Lt.-Co. W.
Wall, Major Patrick


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R,
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Sharples, R, C.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Shepherd, William
Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)


Orr, Capt. L, P. S.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Page, R. G.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Woollam, John Victor


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Studholme, Sir Henry



Pitman, I. J.
Summers, Sir Spencer
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Teeling, W.
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Pott, H. P.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Mr. Bryan.


Question put and agreed to.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent signified.]

8.36 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I confess that before moving the Third Reading of the Bill, I turned back the pages of HANSARD to see in what terms my predecessor moved the Third Reading of the Bill which subsequently became the Act of 1911, and I found that on that occasion the Third Reading was purely formal. I do not think that I can hope to equal my predecessor's record in making no comments on the Bill.
I should like to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to the hard work and admirable skill of my colleagues, especially my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General, who, I think, the House and those who served on the Standing Committee will agree, have been masterly in their handling of this very complicated Measure at all stages.
This Bill is concerned with a subject which does not lend itself to a single comprehensive review. While component parts of the Bill are interlocked, perhaps, to a greater extent than is generally supposed, it is fair to say that we are dealing with a complex of issues rather than with one single issue, and many parts remain remote from the others. It is for that reason that the Bill touches such a wide variety of interests.
Many of those interests present conflicting claims. As one has listened even

to the debates on the Report stage, one has been constantly impressed with the fact that there is no absolutely right or wrong answer to many of the questions which we have been discussing. It is equally clear that not all the claims can be met, because many of them are directly contrary to one another.
As I indicated on Second Reading, we have consistently sought to make a fair compromise in which the competing claims of the interests directly affected are weighed one against the other, whether they concern publishers, the public or musicians, authors and the like. The nature of the subject has meant much detailed consideration in Standing Committee and the thanks of the House are due to the Chairman and the Members of that Committee for the immensely detailed study which they made of the Bill. Not for the first time, a Bill of this nature has emerged from that Committee certainly a sounder and better Bill than when it went into it.
No fundamental or spectacular changes have been made—indeed, this is not a spectacular subject—but possibly the most noticeable changes made in Committee and on Report have been those relating to the duration of the copyright in photographs, in recordings and in broadcasts, to the improvement of the position of the writers of articles commissioned for periodicals, and certain Amendments which have been made in the provisions relating to the Performing Right Tribunal. That, at least, is my view, although I have no doubt that other hon. Members and right hon. Members make their own list of priorities as to


what the most important changes have been.
At any rate, I think I can safely claim that the Bill now represents what it has always been our intention to achieve—a reasonable settlement of a series of highly technical and highly complicated issues. Once again, I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the contributions which have been made to the debate, which have resulted in an improved Bill to which, I trust, the House will now give an unopposed Third Reading.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. W. Wells: As the President of the Board of Trade has just said, this is a technical Bill and one involving a complex of issues, rather than one single important topic of debate, but, although technical and difficult, it is not unimportant. On the contrary, it is of very wide general importance, because what has been discussed underlying the immensely complicated technicalities in which, unfortunately, we have been involved is really this question : what are to be the rewards for creative artistic endeavour in the coming generation, and how are we to reconcile giving artists, writers, composers and performers a generous and encouraging reward, without, at the same time, imposing conditions which render the general diffusion of their efforts too costly to be ultimately for their advantage?
Therefore, on whether we have done our work in the House and in the Standing Committee well or ill will depend to a large extent the cultural wealth of our country in twenty and thirty years' time, because it will be pure hypocrisy and sheer cant to imagine that without proper financial rewards people will be able to come forward and devote their lives to artistic endeavour. I have not the Parliamentary Secretary's facile gift for recollection, but I am sure that Dr. Johnson's remark about the motives which induce people to write will be in the recollection of hon. Members, and I am sure that this need, for most people at least, of a financial incentive will be as real for musicians and other artists as it is for writers.
If one may very quickly glance at the changes that have been made in the Bill, one can say that there have been

certain improvements, certain failures to improve and some question marks. I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one of the main improvements has been in connection with the copyright of works produced in magazines, papers, and so forth ; that is to say, so far as commissioned articles are concerned.
I myself regret that the Government were unable to accept an Amendment put forward yesterday, which, so far as staff journalists are concerned, differentiated between the article that was written solely to appear in the paper or group of papers which the employer of the journalist owned or controlled and those subsequent publications which represented a transaction of sale between the employing publisher, on the one hand, and other people who wished to use the article, on the other. The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted against me some remarks on Second Reading, but, properly construed, those meant nothing more than that while the case for commissioned work was overwhelmingly strong the case for the staff journalists required examination.
However, on the whole there has been a substantial improvement there, and another substantial improvement, for which, I think, we must be grateful to the Government, in that in relation to Clause 24, which now, owing to the Amendment put down by the Government on Report after strong representations from the Opposition in Standing Committee, results in the Tribunal having the discretion to allow parties other than applicants for and grantors of licences to appear before the Tribunal. In effect, that means, of course, the organisations representing those professionally interested or interested by reason of their employment.
I consider the main failure to improve the Bill, and certainly that which has occasioned most disquiet outside, is in relation to Clause 8. Reluctantly, on this side we have felt bound to accede to the principle at this late stage of the licence of right remaining in our copyright law. I mean at this late stage after the effluxion of forty-five years since it was first introduced. I consider that the refusal of the Government, both here in this Chamber and in Standing Committee upstairs, either to accept any of the Amendments we put forward in that


relation or to propound any of their own does mean that the licence of rights as at present enshrined in the Bill is too wide, takes away too much of the rights of composers, and is ultimately, I think, so contrary to the interests of composers as not really to be in the best interests of th gramophone industry. I think that that, perhaps, has been our most important failure.
I think, too, that we have left Clause 12 too open. That is the Clause dealing with sound recordings. I think that we shall find that a number of organisations conducted for profit are using sound recordings without making any payment, and that that is simply a bonus, to hotels and holiday camps, people of that sort, purely commercial, which is not really justifiable.
The two main question marks are first, in Clause 14, relating to copyright in broadcasts. I feel sure that by our failure to ensure that the benefits of the rights thereby created flow to artists and performers, and leaving the rights vested in the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. we are really creating a new kind of copyright which gives the benefit not to somebody who has used any creative endeavour, but merely to transmitters. There may be no practical alternative, and because of that doubt I put that as a question mark rather than as a failure, though I think that it is a fairly large question mark.
The even larger question mark which I think must remain is in relation to the main topic of discussion today, namely, rediffusion. That matter has been so fully discussed that I will not go over the ground again, but I doubt whether anybody who listened to the arguments propounded today would not consider that this is a question which is very uncertain and on which we may well live to regret the decisions taken by the House today.
We said on Second Reading that we thought that this was a good Bill. We think that it has certainly been improved in Committee. We agree with the tributes which the right hon. Gentleman paid to his two hon. Friends and accept with pleasure the tribute which he paid to the Chairman and Members of the Standing Committee. I feel that in this example the Parliamentary system has worked well and that my hon. Friends who attended the Committee proceedings with such assiduity and who took so

active a part in its proceedings have made a valuable contribution to the improvements that have taken place in the Bill. We have not been able to improve the Bill as much as we should have wished, but that, perhaps, is in the nature of the disabilities that attach to being in Opposition.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. P. B. Lucas: I intervene at this late stage only to make one or two general observations on the effects which I believe the Bill, as amended, will have on the televising of sporting events. As I am here dealing with a narrow, although important, point, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments.
First, I must declare an interest. I am a director of companies associated with the promotion of sport and the provision of entertainment. As a result, it must be said that I am an interested party in the particular aspect of these proposals upon which I wish briefly to touch.
My first point is this. I believe that one of the effects of the Bill as amended—and I think it is a good effect—will be to enable the viewing public to see more television of sporting events than would otherwise have been the case. That, I believe is a fact which will come out in the future, and one which will be generally welcomed in the country.
The fact that copyright is now to rest in the hands of the televising authority—and the hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about that with which I was not wholly in disagreement—and there are to be restrictions on the public showing of sporting events in places where there are paying audiences will, I believe, to some degree allay the fears which have existed, not I think unreasonably, in the minds of the promoters.
Of course, there are some who would always say that those whose job it is to present these spectacles are today altogether too touchy about the effect of television upon the events which they are promoting. It is sometimes contended—I think rather unreasonably—that such promoters are thinking more in terms of the box office receipts than of the people with the television sets who wish to see these sporting events shown on their screens.
All I can say is that anyone who has had first-hand experience of this problem, anyone who has lived alongside it for the past five or six years, knows quite well that that is not really a very fair contention. It is not just the effect of television upon one particular event which worries the promoter. It is the result which the televising of a major sporting spectacle will have upon all the other numerous minor sporting events which are being held at the same time which is one of his primary concerns. In the long term the success of the major events, which naturally must be very much in the promoter's mind, will indirectly depend upon the fortunes of the minor fixtures, for without the success of the minor events—the local interest which they create and the players which they produce—the great national spectacles could not prosper.
It is true—I do not think any promoter would deny it—that television has been in part responsible for the build-up of certain sporting events. There is, for instance, no doubt in my mind that the remarkable growth in the popularity of show-jumping in this country since the war—I have particularly in mind two events in which I have an interest, the International Horse Show at the White City and the Horse of the Year Show at Harringay—has been hastened by the careful and limited use of television.
At the same time, it would be possible to argue on the basis of the experience that we have had over recent years that these and other similar events could have been killed stone dead by the unlimited and unrestricted use of television. That is why I say that the safeguards which the Government have written into the Bill will allay to some considerable degree—I do not say altogether—the fears which those who are responsible for producing these various forms of entertainment have not unreasonably harboured. There are some who feel that in these cases the copyright should have rested in the hands of the promoter or body presenting the sport rather than in the hands of the televising authority. I am one who feels that. I think it was a pity that that was done, but I appreciate the Government's point of view.
Again, I think the promoters themselves would have felt much happier if

the restrictions offered by this Measure had covered wholly the public showing of events rather than limiting the coverage to the instances where there were paying audiences. These were matters upon which there was a great deal of discussion and about which compromises were suggested, argued on and eventually accepted, and few would now say that the interests of all the parties concerned—the public, the promoters and the televising authorities—have not been best served in this way.
Having had some very small part in the prolonged earlier discussions which took place on this narrow and complicated portion of the Bill, I should like to pay my own humble tribute to the officials of both the Board of Trade and the Post Office who were so much concerned with those talks. From my experience I should say that it would be hard to conceive of anything fairer, more reasonable or more patient than their treatment of the views and problems of the promoters.
I congratulate the Government upon the manner in which they have handled this extremely controversial part of the Bill. In my view, they have reached a working formula. I do not say that it is necessarily the best one, but I think it will work. I believe that the viewing public, who really matter in this case, will have good reason in the future to be pleased at the arrangements which have been made.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I should like, briefly, to echo some of the sentiments expressed by the President of the Board of Trade and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells).
Now that the Bill has reached its Third Reading, we all want, if for different reasons, to give it a welcome and wish it well. While it is true that it has emerged in a very different form from that in which it was introduced in another place, I think we can all congratulate ourselves upon the work that has been done both here and in the Committee, and I think that we should all agree that a great many Amendments of value have been made to the Bill and that a great many improvements have been brought about.
It is difficult to speak on Third Reading about a Bill which is full of so many diverse and complicated matters. In a sense, it is unnecessary to do so because of the very thorough and painstaking examination which the Bill received in Committee. I suppose that while it is true, as the President of the Board of Trade said, that the Bill, in a great many of its Clauses, represents compromises which have been hammered out to protect the legitimate but conflicting interests of authors, makers of records, makers of films, the television companies, relay companies and the public, there are, of course, over-riding reasons why we all welcome the Bill.
Perhaps the chief of those reasons is that the passing of the Bill into law will enable this country to adhere both to the latest revision of the Berne Convention and to the Universal Copyright Convention. It has, of course, been a matter of some grievance and criticism by British authors for a long time that they have had no copyright protection in the United States, unless the author's work was manufactured there in the sense of being printed there from type set up in that country.
Now, for the first time, the fact that we are adopting the Universal Copyright Convention and making certain changes in our copyright law, coupled with the fact that the United States has also ratified the Convention and altered the conditions of their domestic law in favour of other countries, including our own, will be of very considerable benefit to British authors. I would put that as one of the principle reasons why I think that we should all welcome the Bill.
There are, of course, as my hon. and learned Friend has said, numerous matters of detail on which we should have much preferred the Amendments which we put down to have been accepted. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas), who has just spoken, and I want to mention only one matter of detail which was debated to some extent during the Committee stage and which was left, as I thought, in not an entirely satisfactory position.
We have had today a long and most interesting debate on Clause 40 on the very obstruse question as to what was

and what was not desirable for the protection of the competing interests of the relay companies and the Performing Right Society. I think that the weight of argument in that debate was very nicely balanced and there was not, in the ultimate result, a tremendous amount of difference between the Amendment proposed from these benches and that proposed from the Government benches. In connection with that subject, as the Assistant Postmaster-General will recall, there was an incidental and related subject which gave rise to doubts on the part of some Members of the Committee.
I refer to the operations of the I.T.A. and the operations of the television companies with one of which, as the House knows, I have a professional interest. I pointed out in Committee that the operations of the I.T.A. are at present organised under the Television Act, 1954, on a wholly regional basis, the basis being that different programme companies have exclusive rights in the various areas into which the country is divided for the purposes of independent television.
It seemed to me and I think to the Government that the whole of the operations of the I.T.A. were liable to be frustrated and thrown into confusion if this Bill finally emerged in a form which enabled relay companies to relay television or broadcast programmes from one area to another. I put down certain Amendments designed to see that the objects with which the I.T.A. was concerned were protected. The Assistant Postmaster-General said on 26th July, having, I think, accepted the principle I was urging, that discussions were taking place with the relay companies.
He went on to say, on behalf of the Government :
…we are anxious to ensure that the pattern which the I.T.A. has chosen as a means of getting on to its feet and developing its service should have the proper safeguards in order to see that that service is as effective as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 26th July, 1956; c. 545.]
My own view was that it would be desirable to include the appropriate provisions in the Bill. The Assistant Postmaster-General thought that it would be more satisfactory, or perhaps equally satisfactory, to secure that result by agreement with the relay companies, or alternatively to deal with the matter by


including adequate protection and safeguards in the Postmaster-General's licences to the relay companies.
I think that it is proper to say that since the Committee stage I have had correspondence with the Assistant Postmaster-General on that subject. He has been good enough to assure me that if agreement with the relay companies is not reached it is the intention of the Post Office to give effect to the required arrangements as terms of the relay licences. I thought it fair and proper, as the matter is one of public interest, for the record to make those observations.

9.9. p.m.

Mr. Alport: I wonder whether it would be convenient, since there are properly no provisions for a winding-up speech, at this moment for me to deal with the issues which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has raised. He is aware that we attach importance to this matter and he, like others, is aware that these negotiations have taken some time.
The main reason is that the relay companies are anxious to be able to consider their position in the light of the provisions eventually enacted in this Bill. For that reason it was not possible for us to complete the negotiations before the Report stage, but I have no doubt that as soon as the Bill is completed and becomes law, and the relay companies have had time to consider its implications, we will be able to take the next step. We hope to reach a successful conclusion by means of negotiation, but, as I said in my letter to the hon. Member, if that is not so, then the undertaking I gave there stands.

9.10 p.m.

Sir L. Plummer: Those of us who worked in the Standing Committee and who have devoted a good deal of our time in the House itself to this Bill will, I think, agree that the Measure has well compensated us for the amount of time, trouble, worry and energy which we have put into it. For my part, I have always felt that there were too many harpies battening on the original work of the artist, composer and instrumentalist ; people who by the very nature of their work, as it were by the artistic temperament which they possess, are not able to defend themselves from the depredations

of people who live parasitically on them as are other people who are more capable of looking after their own interests.
I have seen too often the spectacle of a man who, not knowing how to protect himself, has been robbed of the whole of the rewards of his work, particularly in the aesthetic and artistic fields. This Bill gives us an opportunity to do what we ought to have done, what all the nations ought to have done, much sooner than in the forty-five years which have elapsed since the last Copyright Act became the law in this country.
To that extent I think we ought to congratulate not only the Government for having introduced this Measure, but those hon. Members who devoted their time at the International Conference to trying to do justice to the producers all over the world. One thing, of course, is clear ; this Bill has disposed, I hope for all time, of the argument that the other place is useful because it is a splendid revising Chamber. I do not think that anyone has ever seen such a shambles of a Bill as this Measure was when it came to the House of Commons. This House of Commons has proved itself to be an ideal revising Chamber, because the Bill is now an infinitely better Measure than it was when it descended upon us in its rather ragged, tattered and obscure form from the other place.
I think that the Government could have been a little more helpful. I do not think they quite understood all the implications of the Bill. When it comes to be revised, as revised it will have to be in the next decade or so—because the development of mechanical productions is moving at such a pace that all sorts of things will happen to affect the producer—I hope that the Government or, as it will then be, the Opposition, will give us the same support when we revise this Measure as we ourselves have given to the present Government.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Page: May I, from the back benches on this side of he House, offer sincere congratulations to my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and to my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General for their very able guidance of this Bill through its earlier stages? I feel that we can think that we have achieved something in this difficult


piece of legislation through their guidance and through the guidance of the hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), who was the Chairman of the Standing Committee. I think it very worthy of him to be in his place tonight. I should have thought that he had heard our voices long enough during the Committee stage.
This Bill was not just a codification of the law, nor was it only a revision of an old Statute. We were charting out entirely new ground. As has been said by the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), new methods of mechanical reproduction are many since the 1911 Act. That Act in Section 19 talked only about records and perforated rolls. I think it did add "other contrivances" but they have so much increased in the last thirty-five years that we were charting out entirely new ground.
In doing that survey of the new territory we were continually being tripped up by the international Convention. All the time, as we traced out the chart of the new territory of copyright, there was at our elbow Article bis something or other, or ter something or other, which did not make the study of this Bill any easier.
It was right and proper that throughout all stages we should give full consideration to the rights of the author, the artist, and the composer. I have wondered at times whether we had not got the wrong author, artist and composer in mind. I am not concerned with those very eminent people who wrote to The Times. They can look after themselves and can pick and choose their markets. The author, artist and composer who will be protected by the Bill are the small men, who are keen on having the greatest publicity for their work. They are not keen on saying, "You shall not publish my work in this or that medium," but want the greatest publicity they can get. I hope that we have not in any way restricted their market.
I hope that we have also regarded the public interest. At times we have almost leaned over backwards to protect the author, artist and composer and, reading the earlier stages of our deliberations, one might think that the poor old public had been left out altogether. We got so tied up with the Musicians' Union, radio-diffusion companies and various interests,

that a layman might think that we had forgotten that the public are entitled to hear the music, read the work and see the pictures. However, the Bill will show that we have protected the public interest in these matters.
Finally, I would make a rather ungenerous and complaining remark, ungenerous because on all the Amendments which I have proposed, except one, I have had the greatest concessions. I have Clause 40 in mind. A great number of hon. Members on both sides do not delay the business of the House by making speeches on high-level political issues. We save those speeches for the constituencies. We think that we can best contribute to the business of the House by studying the non-controversial legislation and offering such constructive proposals upon it as we can. It ill becomes the Front Bench, even though we may be little worms only throwing up worm casts on the lawn of government, to bring out the heavy roller on the Report stage and flatten out proposals which have passed through the Committee—proposals which we had gained not because of any pressure group or ginger group but by sheer force of argument. If the Front Bench finds that the worms, I will not say turn, but at least wriggle a bit when we reach this stage, it is only to be expected.
Apart from that, I wish the Bill well and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the Assistant Postmaster-General on the able way in which they have conducted it through these proceedings.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: All of us have rather mixed feelings tonight. There is an inevitable feeling of relief that we have come to the end of a long and rather difficult journey and there is a slight feeling of a sadness at the same time. We are saying goodbye to the old Copyright Act, which saw the light in the year in which I was born. I only hope that its successor, the one which we are now sending to another place, will not survive as long as I hope to survive. It is capable of improvement and I hope that we shall not have to wait too long before the improvement is made.
I think that why this has been an enjoyable experience for most of us is


because this is a Bill of what we might call a quasi-philosophical nature. So far as I know, the National Executive of the Labour Party has never laid down what should be the relation between copyright law and the relay services. Therefore, all of us have had rather to feel our way and make up our minds as the discussion has gone along.
Other hon. Members referred to the various conflicting interests which have been at work. I think that in itself has had some compensation for us because we have always known that if we pleased one of the various interests we were bound to antagonise another, and if on one Clause we pleased one interest, it was possible that in a later Clause we would antagonise the same organisation. Therefore, I think we have been able to act without fear or favour throughout the discussions which have taken place. In view of the fact that the Bill has been of that character it has been fortunate that on our benches and, thinly scattered on the Government benches, there have been men of vision, flexibility, responsibility and moderation.
I should like to emphasise again, as I did earlier today, that on our side there has been no party pressure brought to bear at all during the discussions on this Bill, although occasionally our common political philosophy has led us to a point of view which has entailed a clash with Her Majesty's Government. Tonight, I want only to content myself with four very brief reflections. The first is that I think most of us must have felt during discussion of this Bill some doubt whether we were doing everything we ought to do to protect the creative artists. At the moment I think that they are really getting the dirty end of the stick, and if we are not to discourage them in the work they are doing, we may have to consider at a later stage whether there are not other inducements and forms of assistance that we can give to them.
The second reflection is that it has been made clear to us during our discussions that at any rate among musicians and, I think, to a lesser extent, among employees in the film industry, there are grave fears of what is called technological unemployment. I hope that during the coming months the Government will watch that position carefully, and do everything

necessary to protect musicians and other workers from unemployment.
The third reflection is the extent of the improvements that have been made during the passage of the Bill, improvements in respect of photographs, of free-lance journalists and of trade union representation before the Tribunal. Those may seem in some ways small victories which have been achieved, but nevertheless they are victories which, from our point of view. have made the Bill a great deal better than it was.
The last reflection I want to make is to revert to what my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said about the history of the Bill. This is a Bill which came from the Board of Trade to another place where, I think, 300 Amendments were discussed. After that it was necessary for us in Standing Committee upstairs to spend 13 days discussing further Amendments. We were even forced at one point to spend some time discussing whether we should refer to the Queen or the Crown. It seems to me that neither the Board of Trade nor the other place can feel very proud of the Bill in the form in which it first appeared for our consideration.
Now we are at the end of what has been a long, and might have been a very arduous task. Many of us have lived with the Bill now for several months. So far as I am concerned, what might have been a tedious responsibility has been an enjoyable experience for which I should like to join other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) for his good humour in the Chair in Committee upstairs, my hon. Friends for their cooperation, and hon. Members opposite, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and the Assistant Postmaster-General, for their unfailing courtesy and patience throughout the various stages of the Bill.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock